Ex Parte Fedronic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2015

10218665 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/218,665 08/15/2002 Dominique Louis Joseph Fedronic AIM-204US 4799
101221 7590 03/30/2015
Muirhead and Saturnelli, LLC
200 Friberg Parkway, Suite 1001
Westborough, MA 01581
EXAMINER
PAN, PEILIANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2015 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DOMINIQUE LOUIS JOSEPH FEDRONIC and
ERIC F. LE SAINT
____________

Appeal 2012-010109
Application 10/218,665
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 30 through 52, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1 through
29 are cancelled. (App. Br. 2.)
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to “accessing a security token
using a second identifier assigned to a biometric authentication system.”
(Spec. 1:7–8.) Claim 30, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
Appeal 2012-010109
Application 10/218,665

2
30. A system to facilitate access to resources controlled by a
security token comprising:
a client operatively equipped with said security token and
a biometric scanning device for input of biometric data
associated with said token-holder,
a server including:
a biometric data processor for processing said
biometric data and producing a biometric result;
a biometric data base containing biometric
templates;
a comparator that compares said biometric result
with one of said biometric templates associated with said token-
holder, and
a record containing a server secret associated with
said security token, said security token including an
authentication component for:
authenticating said server using said server secret,
and
providing access to said internal resources of said
security token in response to said authentication, wherein:
said server comprises a retrieving section that retrieves
said server secret associated with said security token in said
record in response to a match between said biometric result and
said one biometric template,
said security token memory stores:
a user's personal identification number associated
with said token holder, and
a token secret associated with said server, said
token secret being different and independent from said user's
personal identification number,
said secure token authentication component is responsive
to:
Appeal 2012-010109
Application 10/218,665

3
said personal identification number to authenticate
said token-holder on the basis of said personal identification
number, and
said server secret, independently of said personal
identification number, to authenticate said server on the basis of
said server secret and said token secret following a match
between said biometric result and said one biometric template.

Claims 30 through 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over DiGiorgio et al. (US 6,385,729 B1; filed May 26,
1998; hereinafter "DiGiorgio"), Ting (US 2002/0174348 A1; filed May 17,
2002), and Deo et al. (US 5,721,781; filed Sept. 13, 1995; hereinafter
"Deo"). (Ans. 4–13.)
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (“App.
Br.” filed February 27, 2012; “Reply Br.” filed June 25, 2012) for the
positions of Appellants and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.” mailed
March 29, 2011) and Answer (“Ans.” mailed April 25, 2012) for the
positions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) .

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combined teaching of the prior art does not teach
the claimed device as the
[C]laimed invention provides for two separate mechanisms for
authenticating a user: 1) The user could enter a PIN that is
matched to a PIN on the token/smart card (as in Deo); or 2) The
user could provide biometric data that, when matched on a
Appeal 2012-010109
Application 10/218,665

4
server, causes the server to produce a server secret which is
combined with a secret on the token.
App. Br. 10. We are not persuaded of error by this argument as it is not
commensurate with the scope of the claims which recite authenticating a
user via use of a personal identifier number (PIN) and authentication of a
server, not a user as argued, by use of a biometric comparison and a server
secret. See App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix).
Appellants further argue the prior art does not teach “a) having a
token secret separate and independent of the PIN; b) a server secret that is
provided in response to matching biometric data; and c) authenticating based
on the server secret and the token secret following a match of the biometric
data.” App. Br .11. We are not persuaded of error by this argument.
Initially, we note point a) is not commensurate in scope with claims 44
through 49, as they do not recite the token secret being separate and
independent of the PIN. See App. Br. 17 (Claims Appendix). The
Examiner, provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments
finding that DiGiorgio and Deo each teach use of a PIN; that DiGiorgio
teaches two way challenge where the token is challenged and responds to the
server (which the Examiner considers to meet the shared secret, server and
token secret); and that Ting teaches sending a biometric sample to a server
for comparison which results in generating credentials (which when
combined with DiGiorgio, teaches the claimed authenticating based upon a
secret in response to a match of biometric data). Answer 14–18. We note
that Appellants’ arguments do not specifically address these findings or the
Examiner’s rationale, but rather just discuss the references individually. We
concur with the Examiner’s findings and rationale, and Appellants’
Appeal 2012-010109
Application 10/218,665

5
arguments have not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Thus,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 30 through 52 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 30 through 52 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED