Ex Parte Marciniak

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2017

13797902 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 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.
13/797,902 03/12/2013 Craig A. Marciniak P15204US1 2162
62579 7590
APPLE INC.
c/o Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
410 Seventeenth Street
Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
JIANG, YONG HANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2017 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):
patentdocket @ bhfs. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG A. MARCINIAK1
Appeal 2017-004813
Application 13/797,902
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—18, 20, and 21. Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant identifies Apple Inc. as the real party in interest (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2017-004813
Application 13/797,902
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure relates to “biometric validation.” Abstract.
Claims 1, 7, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for
reference (emphasis added):
1. A method for biometric validation comprising:
receiving a biometric input;
retrieving metadata of a most recently matched template,
wherein the metadata comprises one or more statistics relating
to the most recently matched template obtained from at least one
previous match attempt',
evaluating the metadata;
based on the evaluation of the metadata, selecting one or
more nodes from the most recently matched template for
comparison',
comparing the selected one or more nodes with the
received biometric input;
determining if the selected one or more nodes match with
the received biometric input; and
validating the received biometric input if the selected one
or more nodes match with the received biometric input.
The Examiner’s References and Rejections
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite. Final Act. 2.2
Claims 1, 2, and 6—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fujii (US 2002/0061125 Al; May 23, 2002) and
2 Neither party addresses the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection.
We thus summarily sustain the rejection. We note claim 21 is not otherwise
rejected. See Final Act. 13.
2
Appeal 2017-004813
Application 13/797,902
Madafferi (US 2009/0167492 Al; July 2, 2009). Final Act. 3.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fujii, Madafferi, andNiinuma (US 2010/0060417 Al;
Mar. 11, 2010). Final Act. 8.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fujii, Madafferi, and Lange (US 4,322,795; Mar. 30,
1982). Final Act. 8.
Claims 16—18 and 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fujii, Madafferi, and Official Notice. Final Act. 9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. Except as indicated below with respect
to dependent claims 8—12, we disagree with Appellant that the Examiner
erred and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner. See Final Act. 2—15; Ans. 2—6. We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
A. Independent Claim 1
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1,
because “Fujii’s minutiae are not ‘one or more statistics relating to the most
recently matched template obtained from at least one previous match
attempt.’” App. Br. 6. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that Fujii’s:
metadata includes statistics (via positions, types and directions
of minutiae are equivalent to the statistics of a template as the
3
Appeal 2017-004813
Application 13/797,902
metadata collected by Fujii is used to represent the fingerprint
of a user, see Para. 381).
Ans. 2. We note the Appeal Brief does not point to any portion of the
Specification that reveals a special definition for the term “statistics” which
precludes the minutiae data of Fujii. Further, Appellant’s argument that
Fujii’s most recently matched template is not “obtained from at least one
previous match attempt” is unpersuasive, as the Examiner relies on
Madafferi for that teaching.
Appellant argues that nothing found in Fujii “teaches or suggests
performing minutia matching based on a selected portion of the fingerprint-
like pattern, as alleged by the Examiner” and “[accordingly, Fujii does not
disclose or suggest selecting one more nodes from the most recently
matched template for comparison.” App. Br. 9. We are not persuaded of
Examiner error. The Examiner broadly and reasonably equates Fujii’s
teaching or suggestion of matching minutiae to the claimed “selecting one or
more nodes for comparison” (Ans. 3; Fujii H 381, 388), and this
construction does not conflict with the description of a “node” in the
Specification that “refer[s] to a segment, region or characteristic of a portion
of a specific biometric feature.” See Spec. 118.
Appellant further argues that Madafferi both “does not store the most
recently matched templates in a separate data area” and “does not store
templates, but rather binary numbers that represent the unique characteristics
of the ridges and meridian points of the fingerprints.” App. Br. 10. The
Examiner finds, and we agree that Madafferi “clearly teaches retrieve and
compare the most recently matched template.” Ans. 3 (citing Madafferi 116
(“an alpha database, in which are stored the biometric information keys of a
4
Appeal 2017-004813
Application 13/797,902
selected number of the most recent patrons to enter the venue”)). We further
note Madafferi teaches, upon matching a patron in the alpha database, the
“patron record” is moved “to the first position in the Alpha Database” (see
Madafferi Fig. 3a step 304 and subsequent step; 149), which teaches or
suggests placing the patron’s record (corresponding to the claimed “most
recently matched template”) to be the first entry in the alpha database to be
compared when the next patron’s finger is scanned.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that Madafferi fails
to store templates. See App. Br. 10. The Examiner finds, and we agree, the
claimed “templates” encompass both Fujii’s registered minutiae and
Madafferi’s biometric keys (see Final Act. 3—4, citing Fujii 1388 and
Madafferi 116); we find this construction does not conflict with the
description of “template” in the Specification as “refer[ring]to multiple
nodes that have been woven together and that have been validated as a
biometric feature that is locked and saved.” Spec. 118.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and independent claim 17 commensurate in scope, and claims 5, 6,
18, and 20 not argued separately (see App. Br. 17—18).
B. Dependent Claim 2
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2, because
“Fujii do[es] not teach or suggest ‘retrieving metadata of a next most
recently matched template’” (App. Br. 11) and “Madafferi does not teach or
suggest a most recently matched template and a next most recently matched
template.” App. Br. 12.
5
Appeal 2017-004813
Application 13/797,902
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Madafferi examines “the templates stored in an alpha database
first, and if the template from the alpha database does not match, the
templates stored in the beta database are next used for matching.” Ans. 3
(citing Madafferi 116); see also App. Br. 12. Madafferi thus teaches or
suggests an iterative matching process in which an alpha database containing
information from the “most recently enrolled patrons” are examined first,
followed by examination of a database containing information from other
patrons. An artisan of ordinary skill, appraised of Madafferi, would consider
evaluation of metadata first from “a most recently matched template,”
followed by evaluation of metadata from “a next most recently matched
template” as claimed. Such an evaluation order would minimize evaluation
time until a match is located, as the most recently enrolled patrons would
likely be those seeking entrance. See Madafferi | 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
C. Independent Claim 73
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 7,
because neither Fujii nor Madafferi discloses or suggests “determining if the
received biometric and the most recently matched template match” and “if
the received biometric and the most recently matched template match,
collecting data related to the match.” App. Br. 12. Particularly, Appellant
3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner and Appellant may wish
to determine whether claims 1 and 7 comply with the 37 CFR 1.75(g)
requirement that the least restrictive claim should be presented as claim
number 1.
6
Appeal 2017-004813
Application 13/797,902
contends that Fujii’s teaching of “[d]eterming whether two fingerprint-like
patterns are identical is not the same as collecting data related to the match.”
App. Br. 13.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we
agree that the references teach or suggest that, “[u]pon matching of the
templates, the result of matching is inherently collected to indicate whether
or not matching failed or is successful.” Ans. 4; see also Fujii H 381, 388;
Madafferi 116. The claimed “data related to the match” encompasses the
references’ determination that the patterns are identical. See Final Act. 12.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7, and
dependent claims 13—16 not separately argued. See App. Br. 17—18.
D. Dependent Claim 8
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8, because
neither Fujii nor Madafferi discloses or suggests the claimed limitations,
including “if the received biometric and the most recently matched template
do not match, comparing the received input with a node string of the
template.” App. Br. 13. Particularly, Appellant contends “shifting a
fingerprint image successively does not teach or suggest comparing the
received input with a node string of the template when the received
biometric does not match the most recently matched template.” App. Br. 14.
We agree. The Examiner finds “Fujii teaches that it is known in the
prior art[] that adjustments can be made to successively shift the received
biometric’'’ (Final Act. 5 (emphasis added)) and also finds “the shifted image
used in a successive comparison inherently includes a node string of the
template” (Ans. 4 (emphasis added)). The Examiner’s position is
7
Appeal 2017-004813
Application 13/797,902
contradictory in that the Examiner first finds shifting performed on the
received biometric, and then finds shifting performed on node strings, which
are part of the template and not the received biometric.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8, as well as claims 9—12 that depend
therefrom.
E. Dependent Claim 3
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3, because in
Niinuma, “the verification data is data that is captured by the biometrics
information input unit (e.g., fingerprint data) and the registered data is pre­
stored data relating to a fingerprint” and “[n] either the registered data nor the
verification data disclose or suggest one or more statistics relating to the
matched one or more nodes.” App. Br. 16.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that “the verification data collected from the biometrics information
includes statistics relating to the matched one or more nodes such as the
position and orientation of the biometrics information comprising the
nodes.” Ans. 5 (citing Niinuma 1 69). Appellant provides a general
description and quotations of Niinuma, but does not provide persuasive
technical reasoning or evidence to show Examiner error. See Reply Br. 9—
10.4 Similarly, the Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner’s rejection
4 See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney
arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie
case).
8
Appeal 2017-004813
Application 13/797,902
of claim 4, which depends from claim 3, is in error. See Ans. 6 (citing
Niinuma 69); Reply Br. 9—10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 4.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7, 13—18, 20,
and 21.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8—12.
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