Ex Parte RYU et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201613690573 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/690,573 11/30/2012 Jaemin RYU 1398-450 3189 66547 7590 12/27/2016 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER GYORFI, THOMAS A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2435 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): pto @ farrelliplaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAEMIN RYU, KYUNGSOO KWAG, JUNGKYUEN LEE, KYUNGIM JUNG, and HYUNJIN CHOI Appeal 2016-002808 Application 13/690,573 Technology Center 2400 Before THU A. DANG, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—10 and 12—28, which are all of the pending claims. Claim 11 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2016-002808 Application 13/690,573 A. INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention “relates generally to a method and apparatus for securing touch input,” and “more particularly, to a method and apparatus that ensure security of information input through a touch panel” (Spec. 1,11. 15-17). B. EXEMPLARY CLAIMS Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for securing a touch input, comprising: rendering, in a secure operating environment, a user input screen for accepting the touch input via a touch panel; rendering, in a non-secure operating environment, an execution screen of a User Interface (UI) program requiring the touch input; outputting a secured input screen by displaying the user input screen as an overlay above the execution screen; and preventing the non-secure operating environment from accessing the touch panel and allowing the secure operating environment to access the touch panel when a security attribute of the touch panel is set as secured. C. REJECTION Claims 1—10 and 12—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McIntyre (US 6,630,928 Bl; issued Oct. 7, 2003) and Boebert (US 5,822,435; issued Oct. 13, 1998). II. ISSUES The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of McIntyre and Boebert teaches or suggests “outputting a secured input screen ... as an overlay above the execution 2 Appeal 2016-002808 Application 13/690,573 screen” and “preventing the non-secure operating environment from accessing the touch panel and allowing the secure operating environment to access the touch panel” when “a security attribute of the touch panel is set as secured” (claim 1). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. McIntyre 1. McIntyre discloses a touch pad mounted over the display screen device, wherein Figure 2D is reproduced below: FIG.2D Figure 2D shows a touch pad 13 and a display screen 12 for data entry, wherein the touch pad 13 is coupled to and controlled by a touch pad controller that is part of an overall security processor module (col. 5,11. 8— 16). The security processor interfaces with touch pad 13, is used to encrypt information entered on the touchpad, and is protected by physical security measures, and hot spots are employed to add a level of logical security in this protected environment, wherein this logical security measure stops a 3 Appeal 2016-002808 Application 13/690,573 rogue application program from getting sensitive information entered on touch pad 13 (col. 7,1. 50 to col. 8,1. 6). Boebert 2. Boebert discloses creating a secure user interface by inserting a trusted path subsystem between input/output devices to the workstation and the workstation itself (Abstract). Figure 2 is reproduced below: KiATS.ir*?:. j V *£i aa m. 2 Figure 2 discloses ensuring secure communication over an unsecured communications medium between a user working on an unsecured workstation and a host computer (col. 3,11. 19—22). In particular, a secure user interface is created by inserting a trusted path subsystem between input/output devices to the workstation and the workstation itself (col. 3, 11. 22-25). IV. ANALYSIS In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments that 4 Appeal 2016-002808 Application 13/690,573 Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants contend “McIntyre discloses defining a part of the touch panel 13 as hot spots 13A without disclosing the setting of an attribute of a touch panel 13 as ‘secured’” (App. Br. 4). Appellants contend “McIntyre merely discloses that the touch pad controller 16 configures the PIN entry spot regions or the hotspot regions” but “fails to disclose that the non-secure operating environment is prevented from accessing the touch panel and the secure operating environment is allowed to access the touch panel” as claimed (App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted)). We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence presented. However, we disagree with Appellants’ contentions regarding the Examiner’s rejections of the claims. Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s findings, and find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings. We note that Appellants’ arguments seem to turn on what McIntyre “fails to disclose” (App. Br. 4—6). However, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). That is, as the Examiner points out, “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references” (Ans. 2). Here, the Examiner finds that the combination of McIntyre and Boebert teaches or at least suggests the contested limitations (id.). McIntyre discloses a touch pad that is mounted over the display screen device and that is coupled to and controlled by a security processor 5 Appeal 2016-002808 Application 13/690,573 that encrypts information entered on the touchpad, wherein hot spots are employed to add a level of logical security in this protected environment to prevent a rogue application program from getting sensitive information entered on the touch pad (FF 1). That is, McIntyre discloses providing hot spots as a logical security overlay above an execution screen to prevent a non-secure application program from getting sensitive information entered on the touch pad (id.). Thus, we agree that McIntyre teaches or at least suggests “outputting a secured input screen ... as an overlay above the execution screen” and “preventing the non-secure operating environment from accessing the touch panel” (claim 1). Furthermore, as the Examiner points out, the Examiner relies on Boebert, and not McIntyre, for disclosing and suggesting “the non-secure operating environment is prevented from accessing the touch panel and the secure operating environment is allowed to access the touch panel” (Ans. 2). In particular, Boebert discloses ensuring secure communication over an unsecured communications medium between a user working on an unsecured workstation and a host computer by inserting a trusted path subsystem therebetween (FF 2). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that both Boebert and McIntyre disclose and suggest that, in order to establish secure input on what may otherwise be an untrusted or compromised machine, “an additional module exists on the device that directly reads the keyboard button presses [Boebert] or touch screen presses [McIntyre] and encrypts them” (Ans. 3). As the Examiner finds, although McIntyre implies that “when its secure mode is active the non-secure main application processor does not have access to the touch screen,” Boebert “explicitly teaches that this arrangement. . . prevents 6 Appeal 2016-002808 Application 13/690,573 the non-secure environment from handling the input when the secure environment is active” (id.). Thus, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of McIntyre and Boebert teaches or at least suggests “preventing the non-secure operating environment from accessing the touch panel and allowing the secure operating environment to access the touch panel” when “a security attribute of the touch panel is set as secured” (claim 1). The Supreme Court has clearly stated the “combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. Here, Appellants have presented no persuasive evidence that combining Boebert’s preventing the non-secure operating environment from accessing when a security attribute is set as secured (FF 2) with McIntyre’s secured input screen overlay above an execution screen (FF 1) would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Instead, we conclude that it would have been well within the skill of one skilled in the art to combine the references. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. That is, we find that Appellants’ invention is simply a modification of familiar prior art teachings (as taught or suggested by the cited references) that would have realized a predictable result, KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. On this record, we are unconvinced of Examiner error in the rejection of independent claim 1 over McIntyre and Boebert. Appellants do not 7 Appeal 2016-002808 Application 13/690,573 provide substantive arguments for independent claims 9, 24, and 28 separate from claim 1, as well as claims 2—8, 10, 12—23, and 25—27 depending respectively therefrom (App. Br. 7). Thus, we also affirm the rejections of these claims over McIntyre and Boebert. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—10 and 12—28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation