Ex Parte Rosener

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 3, 2016

12872915 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 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.
12/872,915 08/31/2010 Douglas Rosener 01-7623/US 4317
32681 7590 11/07/2016
PLANTRONICS, INC.
IP Department/Legal
345 ENCINAL STREET
P.O. BOX 635
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060-0635
EXAMINER
KHAN, OMER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/07/2016 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):
patents @ plantronic s. com
francois.devilliers@plantronics.com
neely. frazier @ plan tronics. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DOUGLAS ROSENER
Appeal 2015-007239
Application 12/872,915
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-007239
Application 12/872,915
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 4—9, 12—14, 24—27, and 31—33. Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, and 28—30
have been canceled. Claims 15—23 have been withdrawn. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Representative Claim
1. A system for secure pass-set entry comprising:
an authenticator device comprising:
a processor;
a display; and
a memory storing an authentication application, the
authentication application configured to generate a pass-set
menu comprising a matrix of images to output in visual format
on the display, wherein each image in the matrix of images is
designated with a unique numeric identifier, the authentication
application further configured to output audio comprising the
unique numeric identifier for each image; and
a headset device configured to receive the audio
comprising the unique numeric identifier for each image from the
authenticator device, the headset device comprising:
an output interface to output the audio comprising the
unique numeric identifier for each image to the pass-set menu to
a user;
a user input interface configured to receive user actions to
navigate the pass-set menu and receive user menu selections; and
a data interface for receiving the audio comprising the
unique numeric identifier for each image from the authenticator
device and transmitting user menu selections to the authenticator
device.
2
Appeal 2015-007239
Application 12/872,915
Prior Art
Wong US 6,496,182 B1
Downes US 2007/0266428 A1
Duquene US 2011/0078630 A1
Blackwell US 2011/0295740 A1
Dec. 17, 2002
Nov. 15,2007
Mar. 31,2011
Dec. 1,2011
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, fourth
paragraph.
Claims 1, 4—9, 12—14, and 31—33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Downes, Wong, and Blackwell.1
Claims 24—27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Downes,
Wong, Blackwell, and Duquene.
ANALYSIS
Section 112 rejections of claim 6
Claim 1 recites “an output interface to output the audio comprising the
unique numeric identifier.” Claim 6 recites “the output interface comprises
a headphone.” The Examiner finds it is unclear whether the “output
interface comprises a headphone” as recited in claim 6 is interchangeable
with “the unique numeric identifier” recited in claim 1, or whether the
headphone of claim 6 is an additional limitation to the output interface. Ans.
16. However, claim 1 does not recite the “output interface” comprises the
Uhe Examiner includes claim 15 under this ground of rejection. Ans. 4.
However, claim 15 has been withdrawn. App. Br. 1, 26.
3
Appeal 2015-007239
Application 12/872,915
“unique numeric identifier.” Rather, claim 1 recites an “output interface to
output the audio comprising the unique numeric identifier.'1'’ Emphasis
added. Thus, the audio of claim 1 comprises the unique numeric identifier,
not the output interface. Claim 6 further limits the output interface recited in
claim 1 to a headphone. The Examiner does not persuasively explain how
the headphone of claim 6 does not further limit the output interface of claim
1 or is otherwise unclear.
We do not sustain the rejections of claim 6 under 35U.S.C. § 112.
Section 112 rejections of claim 7
Claim 1 recites “a user input interface configured to receive user
actions to navigate the pass-set menu and receive user menu selections.”
Claim 7 recites “the user input interface comprises an interface configured to
navigate a list of menu items in a forward direction only.” The Examiner
finds it is unclear whether the interface of claim 7 is interchangeable with
the user input interface of claim 1, or whether the interface of claim 7 is an
additional limitation. Ans. 16. Claim 1 recites a user input interface
configured to perform the functions of receiving actions and receiving menu
selections. Claim 7 further limits the user input interface of claim 1 to
include an interface configured to navigate a list of menu items. The
Examiner does not persuasively explain how the additional interface of
claim 7 does not further limit the user input interface of claim 1 or is
otherwise unclear.
We do not sustain the rejections of claim 7 under 35U.S.C. § 112.
4
Appeal 2015-007239
Application 12/872,915
Section 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 4—9, and 12—14
Claim 1 recites an “authentication application configured to generate a
pass-set menu comprising a matrix of images,” where each image “is
designated with a unique numeric identifier,” and the “authentication
application further configured to output audio comprising the unique
numeric identifier for each image.” Figure 21 of Appellant’s Specification is
shown below.
, 540
FIGURE 21
Figure 21 above shows a pass-set menu presented to a user on display
540. The user is presented with menu (or matrix) 240 of menu items 242
and associated numbers. Spec. H 27, 48. For example, the image of the
Elephant is designated with the unique numeric identifier 4, the Monkey
with 0, and the Rabbit with 8. Figs. 21, 3A. As the user scrolls to an image,
5
Appeal 2015-007239
Application 12/872,915
audio of the associated number is output to a user via a headset device.
Spec. 1 56. When the user hears the number associated with a desired menu
item in the headset, such as the number 4 associated with the image of the
Elephant, the user selects the desired menu item. Id. 27, 48, 56. For
example, if the pass-set is Elephant, Monkey, Rabbit, the user selects the
associated numbers 408 in this way to be authenticated. Id. Because only
the user wearing the headset can hear the numbers output to the headset,
other people do not know what items are selected by the user. Id.
We find the broadest reasonable interpretation of an authentication
application “configured to generate a pass-set menu comprising a matrix of
images to output in visual format on the display, wherein each image in the
matrix of images is designated with a unique numeric identifier” and
“configured to output audio comprising the unique numeric identifier for
each image,” when read in light of Figures 21, 3 A, and Paragraphs 27, 48,
and 56 of Appellant’s Specification, requires an authentication application to
display each image with an associated number, and to output audio of the
associated number to a headset device to enable a user to select the image.
The Examiner finds an authentication application “configured to
generate a pass-set menu comprising a matrix of images to output in visual
format on the display, wherein each image in the matrix of images is
designated with a unique numeric identifier” is taught by the dynamic
password images of Downes. Ans. 7 (citing Downes 128 and Figs. 51 and
5J). According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art
understands that each image tile shown in Figures 51 and 5J of Downes has a
unique numeric identifier such as a binary or ASCII value stored in memory,
for the processor to be able to fetch the tile from the memory and display the
6
Appeal 2015-007239
Application 12/872,915
tile. Ans. 7, 17. The Examiner further finds a person of ordinary skill can
output an audible sound that represents the unique numeric identifier to
assist a visually impaired user as taught by Wong and Blackwell. Ans. 8—9,
17.
Appellant contends if a visually impaired user only hears numbers,
without seeing the corresponding tiles shown in Figure 51 of Downes, the
user would not be able to match the audio with the tiles. Reply Br. 13.
Appellant also contends even if the user could see the tiles, the user would
not know how the audio numbers correspond to the tiles, and would not be
able to match the audio with the tiles. Id. at 13—14.
We agree with Appellant that a user who hears a binary or ASCII
number associated with an image tile shown in Figure 51 or 5J of Downes
would not be able to identify the tile, because the tile is not displayed with
the associated binary or ASCII number. The Examiner has not persuasively
explained how the combination of Downes, Wong, and Blackwell teaches an
authentication application to display each image with an associated number,
and to output audio of the associated number to a headset device to enable a
user to select the image, as required by claim 1.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and corresponding
dependent claims 4—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 8 and corresponding
dependent claims 9 and 12—14 contain or depend from a claim containing a
limitation similar to that recited in claim 1 for which the rejection fails.
7
Appeal 2015-007239
Application 12/872,915
Section 103(a) rejection of claims 24—27
Claim 24 recites “determining a selected item using the start point and
the tracked user actions corresponding to the next item command and the
previous item command.” Appellant’s Specification discloses that if a next
or previous item command has been received, a next/previous item
command counter is updated based on whether the user has selected the next
item or the previous item. Spec. 193. The counter is used to determine
where the user is, within the menu of items, relative to the recorded start
point. Id. If an item selection command is received, the selected item is
determined using the recorded start point and the next/previous item
command counter. Id.
The Examiner finds Paragraphs 29, 30, and 34 of Duquene teach
“determining a selected item using the start point and the tracked user
actions corresponding to the next item command and the previous item
command.” Final Act. 14—16. According to the Examiner, as a user makes
selections, the GUI of Duquene keeps track of the count of selected elements
in the menu. Ans. 21. Appellant contends Duquene teaches a user selecting
items directly, and the system keeps track of the number of selected items,
but does not keep track of the number of next item commands and previous
item commands. Reply Br. 22.
We agree with Appellant. Paragraphs 29 and 30 of Duquene teach
indicating how many elements have been selected, and bringing pages with
selected elements into focus. Paragraph 34 teaches setting a count of
elements in the next and previous selection views. The Examiner has not
persuasively explained how Duquene teaches “determining a selected item
8
Appeal 2015-007239
Application 12/872,915
using the start point and the tracked user actions corresponding to the next
item command and the previous item command” as recited in claim 24.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 24 and corresponding
dependent claims 25—27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Section 103(a) rejection of claims 31—33
Claim 31 recites “generating a pass-set menu at a headset device.”
The Examiner finds that a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) of Downes may
output audio to headphones as taught by Bowman. Final Act. 7—8.
Appellant contends a headset is not a PDA. Reply Br. 14—15 (citing Spec. 1
39). Paragraph 39 of Appellant’s Specification discloses that a headset
refers to either a single headphone (e.g., a monaural headset) or a pair of
headphones (e.g., a binaural headset capable of outputting audio in a private
manner directly into the user ear). However, claim 31 recites a “headset
device.” Appellant’s Specification does not provide a definition of a
“headset device” that excludes a PDA with headphones as taught by the
combination of Downes and Bowman.
Appellant also contends that Downes and Wong do not teach
“generating a pass-set menu at a headset device” as recited in claim 31.
Reply Br. 18. Appellant’s contention is based on the premise that a PDA
with headphones is not a “headset device,” which we find unpersuasive as
discussed above.
We sustain the rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claim 32,
which falls with claim 31.
9
Appeal 2015-007239
Application 12/872,915
Claim 32 recites “the pass-set menu is a plurality of images, wherein
each image is designated with an identifier.” Claim 33, which depends from
claim 32, recites “the identifier is a numeric identifier and the audio
associated with the pass-set menu output at the headset device is an audible
reading of the numeric identifier.” The Examiner rejects claim 33 for the
reasons given in the rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 4.
We find claim 33 requires displaying each image with an associated
number, and outputting audio of the associated number to a headset device
to enable a user to select the image, for the reasons discussed in our analysis
of claim 1 above. The Examiner has not persuasively shown that the
combination of Downes and Wong teaches “the identifier is a numeric
identifier and the audio associated with the pass-set menu output at the
headset device is an audible reading of the numeric identifier.”
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The rejections of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are reversed.
The rejections of claims 1, 4—9, 12—14, 24—27, and 33 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
The rejection of claims 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10