Ex Parte QuineDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 26, 201009748994 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 2010) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte DOUGLAS B. QUINE ____________ Appeal 2009-003745 Application 09/748,994 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Decided: January 26, 2010 ____________ Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-003745 Application 09/748,994 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 12-23 and 25. (Br. 3.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant invented a method for verifying the authenticity of received documents by computing an encrypted checksum of the transmitted document and comparing a decrypted checksum of the received document at the destination device with the encrypted checksum value at the originating device.1 Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows: 1. A method of authenticating a facsimile document communicated between a first facsimile communication device and a second facsimile communication device via a communications network, comprising the steps of: a. receiving input data representing the entire facsimile document and generating facsimile information in a first format by said first communication device from said input data; b. processing said input data, at said first communication device, to compute an encrypted checksum of the entire input data; c. convolving said facsimile information with said encrypted checksum data to produce convolved data; d. decrypting, at said second communication device, said encrypted checksum; e. computing a checksum of said input data received at said second communications device; and f. alerting a recipient at said second communication device in the event of a mismatch between said checksum data computed in step (e) and said decrypted checksum data in step (d) by clearly marking a print out of the received input data indicating a tamper condition. 1 See generally Br. 3. Appeal 2009-003745 Application 09/748,994 3 The Rejections The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Reifman US 5,438,433 Aug. 1, 1995 Lee US 6,170,744 B1 Jan. 9, 2001 Claims 1, 5, 7, 12-23 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being unpatentable over Reifman and Lee (Ans. 3-9). Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we refer to the Brief and the Answer for their respective details. In this decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by Appellant. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008). Obvious Rejection Appellant argues that the Reifman and Lee references employed in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection are not combinable because they are not analogous (Br. 9-10). Also, Appellant argues that the cited references do not appear to describe convolving the data as claimed and marking a print out of the received input data (Br. 10). ISSUES The issues before us are: 1. Are the Reifman and Lee references non-analogous technology? Appeal 2009-003745 Application 09/748,994 4 2. Has the Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Reifman and Lee discloses convolving the data as claimed and marking a print out of the received input data? FINDINGS OF FACTS Reifman 1. The intelligent facsimile machine (IFAX) decrypts encrypted incoming messages and compares the two to determine if the original document has been tampered with and if so, issues an Error Report and enter it into an Error Log (col. 48, ll. 48-59). Lee Figure 4 is reproduced below: Appeal 2009-003745 Application 09/748,994 5 Figure 4 discloses a method for document authentication wherein data encryption is employed, decrypted, verified and marked or flagged if document tampering is discovered (col. 12, ll. 54-68, col. 13, ll. 1-3). PRINCIPLES OF LAW As stated in In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006), “[t]he analogous-art test requires that the Board show that a reference is either in the field of the applicant's endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a Appeal 2009-003745 Application 09/748,994 6 basis for rejection.” Id. at 986-87 (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). If the Examiner's burden is met, the burden then shifts to the Appellant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445). ANALYSIS Appellant contends that Reifman and Lee are non-analogous because Lee requires the use of physical documents that are physically generated at the source and Reifman deals exclusively with electronic facsimile document transmission (Br. 9-10). Examiner argues that both Reifman and Lee teach computation of code associated with the comparison of encrypted received data with the result of the data once it has been decrypted to determine if the decrypted received data has been altered from the original encrypted data (Ans. 10). Based on these similarities, the Examiner concludes that the two references are analogous and therefore properly combined. Id. We find the Examiner’s arguments to be persuasive. Both Reifman and Lee address document fraud using encryption and decryption to authenticate received data and provide notice when fraud is discovered. See FF 1-2. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 986-87. We therefore find that Reifman and Lee are analogous art. Appellant states that even if the references are held to be properly combined, the claimed invention is not rendered obvious because the references do not appear to describe convolving the data and marking a print Appeal 2009-003745 Application 09/748,994 7 out of received input data (emphasis added) (Ans. 10-11). The Examiner addressed the convolving and marking limitations of the claims in the rejection thus establishing a prima facie case of obviousness based upon the combination of Reifman and Lee. See Ans. 3-4. Appellant does not set forth any arguments or provide any evidence that would persuade us that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims over Reifman and Lee. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445. We therefore will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 12-23 and 25. CONCLUSIONS Appellant has not shown that the Reifman and Lee references were non-analogous technology. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Reifman and Lee discloses convolving the data and marking a print out of the received input data as claimed. ORDER We will sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 7, 12- 23 and 25. 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 Appeal 2009-003745 Application 09/748,994 8 gvw PITNEY BOWES INC. 35 WATERVIEW DRIVE MSC 26-22 SHELTON CT 06484-3000 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation