Ex Parte Gorelik et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

13936190 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

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.
13/936,190 07/07/2013 Victor Gorelik 4428
7590 02/23/2017
Victor Gorelik
1686 East 19 Street Apt. 3B
Brooklyn, NY 11229
EXAMINER
ULLAH, SHARIF E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2017 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 VICTOR GORELIK and NATALIA HANSON
Appeal 2016-003043
Application 13/936,190
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1 through 5. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2016-003043
Application 13/936,190
INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to a method for use in frequent
verifications of the identity of a user performed during a long session of
client-server communication. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and reproduced below:
1. A method for active biometric user authentication
during a session of client-server communication comprising the
following steps: a login of a user to a session, surveillance of the
user, requests generated by the server, responses generated by the
client, and identity verifications of the user performed by the
server where
the step "a login of a user to a session" comprises:
- extracting a biometric array Z = {z\, z2, Z3, ..., zn} from
an image of the user's face recorded by a webcam, where N is the
number of components in the array Z;
- generating, on the client, a random pair of a private key
and a public key unrelated to the user's biometry,
- submitting the public key to the server,
- extracting a biometric array Z = { zi, z2, z3, ..., zN} from
an image of the user's face recorded by a webcam, where N is the
number of components in the array,
- generating, on the server, an array of random numbers
R= {ri, r2, r3, ..., m } unrelated to the user's biometry and
representing the user,
- submitting the public key to the server;
the step "surveillance of the user" comprises:
- recording a sequence of images of the user's face by the
webcam;
the step "requests generated by the server" comprises:
- generating a random permutation of N integers;
- encoding the permutation with the help of the public key;
- sending the encoded permutation to the client;
2
Appeal 2016-003043
Application 13/936,190
the step "responses generated by the client" comprises:
- extracting a biometric array Znew = {Znewi, ZneW2, ZneW3,
..., Z newN } from the latest image from the sequence of images of
the user's face;
- calculating a representational array Rnew = {(Znewi —
Znew)*Cl, (Znew2 Znew)*C2, (ZnewN ZnCw)*CN J, where Znew—
(Znewi "t" Znew2"*" Znew3 ... ZnewN)/N,
- decoding with the help of the private key the encoded
permutation received from the server;
- applying the decoded permutation to the array Rnew;
- submitting the permuted array to the server;
- the step "identity verifications of the user performed by
the server" comprises:
- applying the permutation created in the step "requests
generated by the server" to the array R created in the step "a login
of a user to a session";
- comparing this permuted array with the array submitted
by the client as the response to the server request;
- making a verification decision based on the correlation
coefficient between these two arrays: access to the server is
recommended if the coefficient is greater than 0.5.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Loo (US 2006/0126905 Al; publ. June 15, 2006) and
Lyseggen (US 2010/0110340 Al; publ. May 3, 2012). Final Act. 4—7.1,2
1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed June 16, 2015,
the Reply Brief, filed December 30, 2015, the Final Office Action, mailed
May 6, 2015, and the Examiner’s Answer, mailed November 18, 2015.
2 We note the Examiner’s application of the prior art to claim 1 also includes
recitation of features disclosed but not claimed.
3
Appeal 2016-003043
Application 13/936,190
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 3, and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Loo, Lyseggen, and Palti-Wasserman (US
2008/0104415 Al; publ. May 1, 2008) (hereinafter “Palti”). Final Act. 7—9.
The Examiner has rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Loo, Lyseggen, Palti, and Wechsler (US 2011/0135165
Al; publ. June 9, 2011). Final Act. 9-11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We disagree with
Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through
3. However, we concur with Appellants that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 4 and 5.
Independent Claim 1
Appellants’ arguments directed to the first issue assert the rejection of
independent claim 1 is in error as claim 1 is directed to a “method of
biometric authentication without storing biometrical data between
communication sessions and without using keys connected to biometric
data.” App. Br. 4. Appellants argue Loo teaches that biometric information
is saved somewhere, citing Loo’s claims. App. Br. 3^4. Similarly,
Appellants argue Lyseggen tries to avoid biometric data because it is not a
reliable solution as “the biometric information can be restored from the
public key.” App. Br. 4.
The Examiner in response to Appellants’ arguments states that there is
“no clear establishment” of the claim language to the arguments. Ans. 3.
4
Appeal 2016-003043
Application 13/936,190
Additionally, the Examiner states there is no claim limitation that suggests
storing zero biometric data in any physical location between the sessions and
that Appellants’ arguments appear to be importing limitations from the
Specification into the claim. Ans. 4.
Appellants assert that:
in the claims we specify the sequence of actions which should be
performed in order to implement the method ( e. g, “generating,
on the client, a random pair of a private key and a public key
unrelated to the user's biometry”, “submitting the public key to
the server”, and so on.), not the actions which should not be
performed (like, for example, “do not store biometric data
anywhere”, or “store zero biometric data”, etc.). In their claims,
the authors of the prior art also specify the sequence of actions
which should be performed in order to implement their methods.
Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that claim 1 does not recite a limitation directed to storing zero
biometric data in any physical location between the sessions.3 Claim 1 is
method claim which “comprises” numerous steps. Our reviewing court has
said that the term “comprising” is “inclusive or open-ended and does not
exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps.” Georgia-Pacific
Corp. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1327—28 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus,
while Appellants’ claim 1 does not recite storing the biometric information
3 We note that contrary to Appellants’ assertion, their disclosure does
discuss storage of biometric information in a smart card. See Spec. para. 26.
This biometric information is used on the client to verify the owner of the
card and gain access to non-biometric information to access the server. Id.
As there is no disclosure in Appellants’ Specification of deleting this
information between sessions, it would appear that the biometric information
is stored between sessions. Thus, we are not sure Appellants’ Specification
would support such a limitation.
5
Appeal 2016-003043
Application 13/936,190
in a location between sessions, the absences of a such a limitation does not
preclude the claim from reading on a device that does. Further, Appellants’
arguments which focus on the claims of the references, is not persuasive of
error as they are only focused on one embodiment (the claimed embodiment)
of the reference and not the whole teaching of the reference. ‘“[A] specific
[embodiment] is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all
disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be
considered. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807
(Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)).
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument, asserting error as Loo and Lyseggen do
not teach storing zero biometric data in any physical location between the
sessions, has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims 2 and 3
Appellants’ arguments directed to claims 2, 3, and 5 assert that Palti
teaches applying a stimulus to the user, and further the claims of Palti recite
use of pre-stored templates. Appellants argue the rejection is in error as the
templates can be stolen or revealed, and that Appellants do not apply
stimulus. App. Br. 5.
The Examiner agrees that Palti applies a stimulus to the user, but
accomplishes the same objective (i.e., the claim 2 recitation of extracting
biometric information from the shape of the user’s pupil). Ans. 5, Final Act.
7.
We concur with the Examiner. Appellants’ arguments directed to
claims 2 are unpersuasive of error as they are similar to those discussed
6
Appeal 2016-003043
Application 13/936,190
above with respect to claim 1 in that they rely upon the features not recited
in representative claim 2. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 2 and claim 3 (which is not separately argued and grouped with
claim 2).
Dependent claim 5
Appellants present separate arguments directed to the rejection of
claim 5, asserting that the claim differs from the combination of Loo,
Lyseggen, and Palti, in that the claim relies upon the area of the user’s pupil
depending upon the brightness of a screen to distinguish a live person from a
static image. App. Br. 5.
The Examiner’s response to these arguments is the same as discussed
above with respect to claim 2.
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Claim 5 recites changing the brightness of a screen, recording the
brightness of the screen, extracting time series of areas of the user’s pupil,
calculating a correlation between the time series of the pupils and brightness
of the user’s screen. Thus, claim 5 does recite using the brightness of a
screen and distinguishing features of a user based upon the brightness.
While we concur with the Examiner that Palti teaches monitoring the pupil
of a user, the Examiner has not shown, nor do we find that Palti, in
combination with the other references, teaches monitoring brightness, and
the user’s pupil in response to changing brightness of a screen as recited in
claim 5. Accordingly, we do no sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5.
7
Appeal 2016-003043
Application 13/936,190
Dependent claim 4
Appellants’ arguments directed to the rejection of claim 4 assert that
the claim differs from the combination of Loo, Lyseggen, Palti, and
Wechsler in that the claim relies upon the distance between outer sides of the
users’ s nose changing to distinguish a live person from a static image. App.
Br. 6.
The Examiner’s response focuses on the Appellants’ arguments
directed to storing zero biometric data in a location between sessions. Ans.
7. Further, in the Final Office Action, the Examiner cites to Wechsler as
teaching extracting a time series of images of movement of the sides of the
user’s nose. Final Act. 10 (citing Wechsler paras. 106, 107, and 120).
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Claim 4 recites extracting a time series of the distance between
the outer sides of the wings of a user’s nose from a sequence of images, and
calculating a correlation between the time series of images and a time series
of intensity of the sound of the user’s breathing. We concur with the
Examiner that Wechsler teaches observing a user’s nose in an image
processing environment, but we do not agree with the Examiner that
Wechsler, in combination with the other references, teaches extracting the
distance between wings of a user’s nose and correlating the images with
breathing, as recited in claim 4. Accordingly, we do no sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 3.
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 4 and 5.
8
Appeal 2016-003043
Application 13/936,190
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9