Ex Parte Kim

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2018

14640532 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2018)

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.
14/640,532 03/06/2015 Kyong-Su KIM 1398-679 CON 3 2959
66547 7590 03/14/2018
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
KAPLAN, BENJAMIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2434
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2018 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):
pto @ farrelliplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KYONG-SU KIM
Appeal 2017-002161
Application 14/640,532
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 12-33, which constitute all claims pending in this application.1 App.
Br. 2-3. Claims 1-11 have been canceled. App. Br. 7. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics Co,
Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-002161
Application 14/640,532
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a mobile
communication terminal for notifying a user that an input password does not
coincide with a stored password, and for subsequently allowing the user to
enter second password, which permits the user to unlock the terminal when
the second password matches second password information previously
stored in memory. Spec. 1:17-24, Fig. 1.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 12 is representative, and reads as follows:
12. An apparatus comprising:
a display;
a memory to store first information and second information to be used
to unlock the apparatus; and
a controller configured to:
receive a first input while the apparatus is in a locked state;
present, via the display operatively coupled with the controller, a
request for a second input, based at least in part on a first determination that
the first input does not correspond to the first information;
receive the second input in relation to the request; and
unlock the apparatus based at least in part on a second determination
that the second input corresponds to the second information.
Prior Art Relied Upon
Juelsetal. US 2006/0037073 A1 Feb. 16,2006
(“Juels”)
Kalmick et al. US 2006/0173917 A1 Aug. 3, 2006
(“Kalmick”)
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 12, 13, 15-17, 21-29, 32, and 33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Juels. Final Act. 4-16.
2
Appeal 2017-002161
Application 14/640,532
Claims 18 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Juels. Final Act. 16-17.
Claims 14, 19, 20, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Juels and Kalmick. Final Act.
17-31.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 2-6, and the Reply Brief, pages 1—4.:2
Anticipation Rejection
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Juels
anticipates claim 12. App. Br. 3-4; Reply Br. 1-3. In particular, Appellant
argues that Juels fails to disclose a controller of an apparatus receiving an
input and a request to be unlocked based at least in part on a determination
that a second input received by a controller of the apparatus corresponds to
second information stored in a memory of the apparatus, as recited in
independent claim 12. App. Br. 3. According to Appellant, Juels’
disclosure of inputting a personal identification number (PIN) to a personal
computer (PC) so as to access specific functions and resources of a smart
card connected thereto does not teach unlocking the whole PC system into
which the input is provided. Id. Further, Appellant argues that Juels teaches
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 26, 2016), the Reply Brief (filed
November 7, 2016), and the Answer (mailed September 7, 2016) (“Ans.”)
for the respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2017-002161
Application 14/640,532
using only one correct PIN, but not a second PIN different from the first
input. Id. (citing Juels 37—41).
These arguments are not persuasive. At the outset, we note the claim
does not require unlocking a whole PC into which a PIN has been input.
Instead, the claim merely recites unlocking “an apparatus” based on the
determination that a second input corresponds to a second information stored
in memory. As correctly noted by Appellant, Juels discloses a user inputting
into a smart card, answers to questions, i.e., the second PIN, (in the orange
state) after the user’s initial inputs (in the yellow state), i.e., the first PIN, do
not correspond to access information stored in the smart card memory. Juels
3 8 42. We agree with the Examiner that Juels’ disclosure of a user
inputting the PIN into the smart card describes the smart card apparatus
receiving the input so as to be placed in an unlocked state. Ans. 21-22. We
further agree with the Examiner that Juels’ disclosure of inputting in the
smart card a second PIN, which permits access to the resources of the smart
card when the second pin matches previously stored information teaches
determining a second input, different from the first input, matches stored
input information in memory. Id.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we are not persuaded of error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12.
Regarding the rejection of claims 13, 15-17, 21-29, 32, and 33,
because Appellant has either not presented separate patentability arguments
or has reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 12 above, those claims fall therewith.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
4
Appeal 2017-002161
Application 14/640,532
Obviousness Rejections
Regarding the rejection of claims 14, 18-20, 30, and 31, Appellant
argues that none of the secondary references cures the noted deficiencies of
Juels, as discussed above. App. Br. 5-6. As previously noted in our
discussion of claim 12 above, we find no such deficiencies in Juels for the
secondary references to remedy. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error in the obviousness rejections.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
12-33, as set forth above.
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) (iv).
AFFIRMED
5