Ex Parte Johnson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2016

12209763 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/209,763 09/12/2008
45209 7590 05/19/2016
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
c/o CPA Global
900 2nd A venue South, Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Erik J. Johnson
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.
42P27394 5165
EXAMINER
LANIER, BENJAMINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2437
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2016 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):
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
Database_ Group@bstz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIK J. JOHNSON, JASMEET CHHABRA, STEVE ORRIN,
TRAVIS T. SCHLUESSLER, and STEPHEN D. GOGLIN
Appeal2015-001459
Application 12/209,763
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, 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 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20. 1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 4 and 14 were previously cancelled. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2015-001459
Application 12/209,763
INVENTION
The invention is directed to detecting human presence during an
online service transaction. (Spec. i-f 1.) Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a service request for an online service
transaction;
requesting attestation for a human-input activity in
response to receiving the service request, wherein the
attestation comprises at least a timestamp verified by a user
hardware system component indicating a last human input
activity at the user hardware system component;
receiving a signature from a secure entity attesting the
timestamp corresponding to the last human-input activity in
response to requesting attestation; and
authenticating the online service transaction based at
least in part on the signature and the timestamp received from
the user hardware system component.
Faris et al.
Kellas-Dicks et al.
Calinov et al.
REFERENCES
US 2002/0026321 Al
US 2009/0150992 Al
US 7,606,915 Bl
REJECTION AT ISSUE
Feb.28,2002
June 11, 2009
Oct. 20, 2009
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Calinov, Faris, and Kellas-Dicks.
(Final Act. 3.)
2
Appeal2015-001459
Application 12/209,763
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Calinov,
Faris, and Kellas-Dicks teaches or suggests "requesting attestation for a
human-input activity in response to receiving the service request" as recited
in claims 1 and 11 ?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Calinov,
Faris, and Kellas-Dicks teaches or suggests "receiving a signature from a
secure entity attesting the timestamp corresponding to the last human-input
activity in response to requesting attestation" as recited in claims 1 and 11?
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and we adopt as our
own: (1) the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals
set forth in the Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. (Ans. 2-3).
However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of all claims
on the basis of representative claims 1 and 11. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
Appellants argue that Calinov, Faris, and Kellas-Dicks each fail to
teach or suggest a process of requesting attestation for a human-input
activity in response to receiving the service request. (App. Br. 10.)
Specifically, Appellants argue that the "process of delivering a test to a
client for rendering to a user upon user requests access to a service as
3
Appeal2015-001459
Application 12/209,763
disclosed in Calinov, cannot reasonably be construed as a request for
attestation." (Id.)
The Examiner finds that in the context of Appellants' Specification
the "requesting attestation for a human-input activity" reasonably
encompasses requests to the initiator of a service request to attest to the fact
that they that the requestor is human. (Ans. 2) (citing Spec. i-f 7.)
This appeal turns on claim construction. We note the scope of
Appellants' claim 1, at a minimum, at least covers the corresponding
supporting embodiment( s) described in the Specification. We emphasize,
however, that under a broad but reasonable interpretation applied by the
US PTO (or the more narrow construction applied by the federal courts), the
scope of the claims are not limited to the preferred embodiments described
in the Specification: "[A ]lthough the specification often describes very
specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against
confining the claims to those embodiments ... [C]laims may embrace
'different subject matter than is illustrated in the specific embodiments in the
specification."' Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en bane) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, we conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited
"requesting attestation for a human-input activity" at least encompasses (but
is not limited to) the corresponding supporting embodiments in Appellants'
Specification. We note attestation is discussed in paragraphs 7 and 12 of
Appellants' Specification as follows:
[0007] As provided herein, methods, apparatuses, and
systems enable authentication of service transactions based on
activity timestamps and/or keystroke comparisons to ensure
human presence during a service transaction.
4
Appeal2015-001459
Application 12/209,763
[0012] ... activity. In various embodiments, attestation
includes a signature from the Manageability Engine 124
confirming a human-input activity (such as a keystroke or
mouse click from keyboard/mouse 130). In some
embodiments, the attestation includes a timestamp generated by
Manageability Engine 124.
Given this context, we agree with the Examiner's interpretation that
"attestation" (claim 1) broadly but reasonably encompasses keystrokes or
mouse clicks which ensure human presence during a service transaction.
(See Ans. 2.) The Examiner finds, and we agree, that "Calinov discloses that
the user response to the test includes a timestamp [] which meets the
limitation of the attestation comprises at least a timestamp corresponding to
a last human input activity." (Final Act. 3 (citing Calinov, Fig. 9).)
The Examiner also finds Calinov teaches delivering a test to a client
where the test can distinguish a user from a machine by presenting the user
with a graphical image that contains a string or sequence of random
characters that have been altered to inhibit character recognition. (Ans. 2-3;
Calinov 3:5-8, 6:27-32) We agree with the Examiner that a test which
distinguishes between a user and a machine and includes a timestamp is
within the scope of requesting attestation for a human-input activity, as
recited in claims 1 and 11. Accordingly Appellants' argument fails to
persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings regarding Calinov.
Appellants further argue Calinov, Faris, and Kellas-Dicks fail to teach
or suggest a process of receiving a signature from a secure entity attesting a
timestamp corresponding to a last human-input activity in response to
requesting attestation. (App. Br. 10-11.) Appellants argue Faris teaches
5
Appeal2015-001459
Application 12/209,763
authenticating previously generated digitally signed timestamps, but Faris
does not teach that the signed timestamps are received from a secure entity.
(App. Br. 11.)
The Examiner finds:
Faris discloses that the timestamps and digital signatures of the
timestamps are generated in a secure manner by a GSU resident
on a client machine ([0137]). Additionally, Faris discloses that
the GSU when used in a client machine greatly enhances the
security of the overall system ([0137]). Therefore, the client
machine of Calinov when modified as proposed in the Final
Office Action mailed 23 January 2014 ("Final") reads on the
claimed "[secure] entity" using a broad but reasonable
interpretation of the limitation.
(Ans. 3.) We agree with the Examiner's interpretation and reasoning here
and adopt it as our own. Appellants' argument fails to persuasively rebut the
Examiner's findings regarding Faris.
For the above reasons we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6