Ex Parte HUANG et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2019

14400529 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/400,529 11/11/2014
69316 7590 05/30/2019
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jerry HUANG
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
341478.02 6981
EXAMINER
BAYOU, YONAS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2434
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JERRY HUANG and ZHEN LIU
Appeal2018-008325
Application 14/400,529
Technology Center 2400
Before JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-3, 6, 8-14, 16-18, and 21-24. Claims 7 and 19
are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and claims 4,
5, 15, and 20 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Microsoft Technology
Licensing. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-008325
Application 14/400,529
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to:
Methods, systems, and computer program products ... for
protecting data stored on a device based on user input patterns.
The device may have one or more types of user interfaces. The
user interacts with a user interface of the device according to a
pattern. The interaction pattern is monitored, and compared to
one or more stored acceptable user interface patterns associated
with sensitive data. If the interaction pattern of the user does not
match an acceptable user interface pattern, a data protection
response assigned to the data is enacted.
Spec. ,r 5.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A system in a computing device to protect data stored by
the computing device, comprising:
a user input pattern monitor configured to determine
whether a detected user interaction pattern with a user interface
of the computing device indicates an interaction by an
unauthorized user, the detected user interaction pattern
comprising a keyboard user interaction pattern that includes a
predetermined typographical error; and
a data protection enactor configured to discreetly enact a
data protection response associated with data when the detected
user interaction pattern is determined by the user input pattern
monitor to indicate an interaction by an unauthorized user.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6, 8-14, 16-18, and 21-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over McGloin (US 2014/0033299 Al, pub.
Jan. 30, 2014) and Jianci (CN 1517889 A, pub. Aug. 4, 2004). Final Act. 3-
9.
2
Appeal2018-008325
Application 14/400,529
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in finding that claims 1-3, 6, 8-14, 16-18, and 21-24 are unpatentable
over McGloin and Jianci.
Appellants contend that Jianci fails to teach or suggest that the
detected pattern includes a predetermined typographical error as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 8. In particular, Appellants argue that in Jianci's
authentication process, a "waveform received in response to a user's input of
characters may be compared against a previously learned waveform
representative of a user's keyboard behavior patterns (see pp. 2-3 of Jianci
translation)." App. Br. 9. According to Appellants:
Merely authenticating a user based on matching a keyboard
output (such as an outputted waveform) to a stored user's
credentials (such as a stored waveform) is not the same thing as
detecting a keyboard interaction pattern that includes a
predetermined typographical error as recited in claim 1.
Reply Br. 5.
We agree. While we note that Jianci generally discloses comparing
behavioral characteristics through use of an outputted waveform based on a
user's input, claim 1 here expressly recites that the keyboard user interaction
pattern "includes a predetermined typographical error." On the record
before us, the Examiner has not sufficiently shown how Jianci' s outputted
waveform could be interpreted to include the required predetermined
typographical error. As such, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1.
We similarly find Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 11
and 17 persuasive. Namely, Appellants contend that Jianci fails to teach "a
pointing device interaction that includes at least one of a movement of a
3
Appeal2018-008325
Application 14/400,529
pointer within a determined screen area, an amount of file exploration
having a predetermined relationship with a first predetermined threshold, or
an amount of folder exploration having a predetermined relationship with a
second predetermined threshold," as recited in claim 11, and "a touch screen
interaction that includes at least one of an average touch area or an average
touch pressure range," as recited in claim 17. See App. Br. 10-16; Reply Br.
6-10. The Examiner again relies on Jianci's general teaching of the user
tapping of keys reflecting a user's habits as satisfying these limitations. See,
e.g., Ans. 12-13. As discussed above, Jianci teaches authenticating a user
based on analysis of a user's keystroke behavior. However, on the record
before us, the Examiner does not sufficiently show how Jianci teaches or
suggests the claimed pointing device interaction ( claim 11) or the claimed
touch screen interaction (claim 17). As such, we are persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11 and 1 7.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3,
6, 8-14, 16-18, and 21-24 as unpatentable over McGloin and Jianci.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 6, 8-14, 16-
18, and 21-24.
REVERSED
4