Ex Parte Mclaughlin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2016

13754990 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016)

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.
13/754,990 01/31/2013 Brian Smith MCLAUGHLIN BTLNP0104USA 1945
43076 7590 12/22/2016
MARK D. SARALINO (GENERAL)
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE, NINETEENTH FLOOR
EXAMINER
MOORAD, IMRAN
CLEVELAND, OH 44115-2191 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2442
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2016 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):
ipdocket @ rennerotto. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN SMITH MCLAUGHLIN, LEONARDO B. GILL,
MARSHALL JOSEPH TRACY, ERIK VAUGHN MITCHELL, and
JEFFREY TODD DIXON
Appeal 2016-002197
Application 13/754,9901
Technology Center 2400
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—12, and 14—23, which constitute all the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is related to authenticating the user of a
computing device. Abstract; Spec. 1:1—11; 2:25—27.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Bottomline Technologies, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-002197
Application 13/754,990
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on
appeal (disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A computing device, comprising:
a processor;
a computer readable memory;
a display screen;
a touch sensitive panel overlying the display screen; and
computing device application instructions coded in the
computer readable memory and executed by the processor to:
display a user-selectable photograph on the display screen, the
user selectable photograph including a group of fiducials,
generate captured trace stroke pattern data, wherein:
the captured trace stroke pattern data comprises multiple
coordinate values along one or more trace strokes between a pair of
fiducials from the group of fiducials on the touch sensitive panel
where touched by a user,
a measured radius value is associated with each coordinate
value of the captured trace pattern data, and
the measured radius value represents a contact size on the
touch sensitive panel at the coordinate value when the captured trace
pattern data was captured,
initiate comparison of the captured trace stroke pattern data and
associated measured radius values with trace pattern verification data
and associated radius values, wherein:
the trace pattern verification data comprises coordinate data
values representing coordinate values along one or more trace strokes
on the touch sensitive panel and each coordinate data value of the
trace pattern verification data is associated with a radius value, and
provide for authentication of the user based on the comparison
of the captured trace stroke pattern data and the trace pattern
verification data, wherein the user is only authenticated if the
measured radius values of the captured trace stroke pattern data
matches, within a threshold, the radius values of the trace pattern
verification data.
App. Br. 17—18 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal 2016-002197
Application 13/754,990
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3—12, and 14—23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 § U.S.C.
103(a) as being unpatentable over Werner et al. (US 2010/0169958 Al,
published July 1, 2010) (“Werner”), Blonder (US 5,559,961, issued Sept. 24,
1996), Cortopassi et al. (US 2009/0202153 Al, published Aug. 13, 2009)
(“Cortopassi”) and Kennedy et al. (US 2002/0080123 Al, published June
27, 2002) (“Kennedy”). Final Act. 6 -14.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Werner, Cortopassi, and Kennedy teach the
limitations of claims 1, 3—12, and 14—23. Final Act. 6—16; Ans. 12—15.
Appellants and the Examiner dispute whether the combination of Cortopassi
and Kennedy teaches the claim 1 limitation the measured radius value
represents a contact size on the touch sensitive panel at the coordinate value
when the captured trace pattern data was captured. App. Br. 4—15; Reply
Br. 4—7; Final Act. 6—15; Ans. 12—15.
The Examiner finds Cortopassi teaches a measured size value which
represents a contact size on the touch sensitive panel. . . Final Act. 8—9
(citing || 44, 56, 70; Figs. 8, 9, 13A, 14, 15). In particular, the Examiner
finds Cortopassi pressure measurement establishes variations of stroke size.
Id. (citing Figs. 8, 9, 15). For example, Figure 15 shows “variations of
stroke size based on measured pressure.” Id. The Examiner finds the claim
term contact size can be interpreted to include “a pressure measurement. . .
made to generate a final size value (in pounds).” Id. at 4—5.
The Examiner additionally determines contact size is non functional
descriptive material because there is no requirement for the measured radius
3
Appeal 2016-002197
Application 13/754,990
representing a contact size to be of a specific value, contact size is not relied
on by other limitations and, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
contact size can be “a dot or a point having infinitesimal radius.” Ans. 12—
13. With this interpretation, the Examiner then finds Cortopassi teaches the
limitation the measured radius value represents a contact size on the touch
sensitive panel. Id. (citing Cortopassi H 16, 35, 17; Fig. 14). In particular,
the Examiner finds Cortopassi teaches pressure can determine the width of
an inputted stroke. Id. at 13 (citing Cortopassi 17, 71; Fig. 15). The
Examiner then finds the term radius relates to width, which is analogous to
diameter, and diameter and radius are directly related. Id.; see also
Cortopassi 116.
The Examiner finds Cortopassi (and Werner and Blonder) is silent
regarding a measured radius value representing a contact size on the touch
sensitive panel at the coordinate value when touch input data is captured.
Final Act. 9. The Examiner then finds Kennedy teaches the measured
radius value ... by describing measurement of a contact size in terms of
pixels or millimeters wherein the size data is stored and used later to verify a
contact type. Id. (citing Kennedy Tflf 24—27). The Examiner finds one of
ordinary skill in the art would modify the teaching of Cortopassi of taking
size and location measurements along various points in a stroke for the
purposes of authentication with the teaching of Kennedy wherein size
measurement is a radius measurement. Id. 9—10.
The Examiner additionally finds Kennedy supplements the teaching of
Cortopassi. Ans. 14—15 (citing Kennedy 7, 24—27, 39, 41, 43). In
particular:
4
Appeal 2016-002197
Application 13/754,990
[the] Examiner has cited portions of Kennedy to show that it would be
have been reasonable to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
modify the teachings of Cortopassi with that of Kennedy so that that
Cortopassi's width detection techniques generate further size
information pertaining to a touch input, such as touch area or width.
Id. at 14.
Appellants argue the limitation the measured radius value represents
a contact size on the touch sensitive panel is functional because the claim
limitations rely on the measured radius values for authentication and the
measured radius value represents a contact size. Reply Br. 2-4. Regarding
the Examiner’s claim interpretation that contact size can be “a dot,”
Appellants argue the measured radius is required to have a specific value in
order for the user to be authenticated in the invention of claim 1 which
recites: “the user is only authenticated if the measured radius values of the
captured trace stroke pattern data matches, within a threshold, the radius
values of the trace pattern verification data. ” Id. at 3.
Appellants argue Cortopassi teaches performing user authentication
based on the pressure applied at different points . . . .” App. Br. 13 (citing
Cortopassi Abstract). According to Appellants, Cortopassi uses pressure
data to authenticate a user and does not teach using a measured radius value,
and the claim limitation cannot be interpreted to be a pressure value. Id. at
14. Regarding Cortopassi using measured pressure to set the displayed line
thickness, Appellants argue “the width referenced by the Examiner is not a
measured width, but is instead a rendered line width that is completely
unrelated to the width or radius of the input.” Id. at 5 (citing Cortopassi
171; see also Fig. 15).
According to Appellants:
5
Appeal 2016-002197
Application 13/754,990
While the Examiner argues that size may be a magnitude
measurement, Cortopassi measures pressure (NOT a radius
value). Claim 1 recites a “measured radius value represent[ing]
a contact size on the touch sensitive panel.” A measured radius
value representing a contact size is not a pressure.
App. Br. 15.
Appellants argue Kennedy teaches contact information, upon
detection of a contact with a touchscreen, may include the size of the
detected contact but does not teach “using the size of a detected contact to
authenticate a user.” App. Br. 15—16 (citing Kennedy 124).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Claim terms in a patent
application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, the Examiner’s
interpretation of a measured radius value representing a contact size to
include Cortopassi’s pressure teaching is unreasonable and overbroad. We
also agree with Appellants that the claim limitation does not constitute non
functional descriptive material because the limitation is functional and is
utilized in other limitations.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding Cortopassi
because Cortopassi teaches using stroke data and pressure data for
handwriting recognition and authentication. Cortopassi’s description of the
use of pressure to change the width of a line does not teach “a measured
radius value [which] represents a contact size on the touch sensitive panel ”
for trace pattern recognition and authentication. See Cortopassi 16, 71;
Fig. 15. We agree with Appellants that Cortopassi does not teach using the
width of an input stroke for recognition or authentication.
6
Appeal 2016-002197
Application 13/754,990
Regarding Kennedy, inasmuch as we disagree with the Examiner’s
finding that Cortopassi teaches using the width of an input stroke for
recognition or authentication, there is insufficient basis to make the
combination of Cortopassi and Kennedy suggested by the Examiner and
such combination would not result in the disputed limitation. In addition,
we agree neither Cortopassi nor Kennedy teaches using contact size for
authentication.
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and
independent claim 12, which recites the disputed limitation. We also do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3—11 and 14—23. Cf. In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[Djependent claims are nonobvious
if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious . . . .”).
Because our decision with regard to the disputed limitation is dispositive of
the rejection of these claims, we do not address additional arguments raised
by Appellants.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—12, and 14—
23.
REVERSED
7