Ex Parte Navratil et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 14, 2014

12057470 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2014)

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.
12/057,470 03/28/2008 Jiri Navratil YOR920050283US2 1409
48062 7590 08/14/2014
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
1175 Post Road East
2nd Floor
Westport, CT 06880
EXAMINER
PEARSON, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2438
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/14/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte JIRI NAVRATIL, RYAN L. OSBORN, JASON W. PELECANOS,
GANESH N. RAMASWAMY, and RAN D. ZILCA
_____________

Appeal 2012-004090
Application 12/057,470
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 22. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system and method for sequential
authentication of a user which employs one or more error rates for each
security challenge. Abstract of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
Appeal 2012-004090
Application 12/057,470
2

1. A method for sequential authentication a user, comprising:
challenging said user with at least one knowledge challenge to
obtain an intermediate authentication result, wherein said intermediate
authentication result is based on one or more of false accept and false
reject error probabilities for each knowledge challenge, wherein said
false accept and false reject error probabilities for a current challenge
are updated based on information from one or more previous
challenges from one or more previous sessions prior to determining a
final authentication result for said current challenge; and
repeating said step of challenging said user with at least one
knowledge challenge until a cumulative authentication result satisfies
one or more criteria, wherein said cumulative authentication result is
calculated based on a dynamic algorithm and wherein said dynamic
algorithm is capable of being reconfigured during execution of said
method, wherein one or more of said steps are performed by a
processor.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 8, 11 through 17 and 19
through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Teunen (US
2005/0132235 A1; June 16, 2005), Orsini (US 2004/0049687 A1; Mar. 11,
2004) and Brebner (US 2004/0083394 A1; Apr. 29, 2004). Answer 4-9.
1

The Examiner has rejected claims 9, 10, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Teunen, Orsini, Brebner, and Duc (Person
Authentication by Fusing Face and Speech Information) (1997), pp. 311-
318. Answer 9-10.

1
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated September 1,
2011, the Reply Brief dated December 20, 2011, and the Examiner’s Answer
mailed on November 22, 2011.
Appeal 2012-004090
Application 12/057,470
3

ISSUE
Appellants argue on pages 4 through 7 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 20 is in error. The
dispositive issue presented by these arguments is: Did the Examiner err in
finding the combination of Teunen, Orsini, and Brebner, teaches challenging
a user to obtain an authentication result where the false accept and false
reject error probabilities for the current challenge are updated based upon
information from one or more previous challenges from sessions prior to
determining the final authentication?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. We agree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding the combination of references teaches the false accept and false
reject error probabilities for the current challenge are updated based upon
information from one or more previous challenges. App. Br. 6–8.
Each of independent claims 1, 13, and 20 recite limitations directed to
updating the false accept/reject error probabilities for the current challenges
based upon information from one or more previous challenges from sessions
prior to determining the final authentication. The Examiner finds Orsini
teaches this limitation as Orsini teaches a profile used in authenticating the
user is built from historical data of multiple past user authentications.
Answer 10-11. We have reviewed the disclosure of Orsini cited by the
Examiner as evidence to support this finding and do not consider it to teach
the claimed updating of false reject and false accept error probabilities based
on information from one or more previous challenges from one or more
Appeal 2012-004090
Application 12/057,470
4

previous sessions prior to determining a final authentication result for the
current challenge, as claimed. (Emphasis added). App. Br. 6–7.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 13, and 20, or dependent claims 2 through 8, 11, 12, 14 through 17,
19, 21, and 22, similarly rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
With respect to dependent claims 9, 10, and 18, the Examiner has not
shown the additional teachings of Duc remedy the deficiencies noted in the
rejection of independent claims 1 and 13. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 10, and 18 for the same reasons as
discussed with respect to claim 1 and 13.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 22 is
reversed.

REVERSED

dw