Ex Parte Sezan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

14178156 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/178,156 02/11/2014 Muhammed Ibrahim Sezan
79659 7590 03/26/2018
Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson LLP - QUAL
Attn: QUAL
P.O. Box 70250
Oakland, CA 94612-0250
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
QUALP21 l US/133057 2886
EXAMINER
GOLRIZ, ARYA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2498
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2018 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):
USPTO@wavsip.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MUHAMMED IBRAHIM SEZAN, DAVID C. BARTNIK,
DAVID WILLIAM BURNS, JACK CONWAY KITCHENS II,
LEONARD C. PRATT, JOHN KEITH SCHNEIDER,
SUR Y APRAKASH GANTI, and Y AIR KARMI
Appeal2017-010617
Application 14/178, 156 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 9, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23, 27, 29-34, 48, 49, 54,
55, 60, 61, 66, and 67, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. Claims 6-8, 10, 12, 13, 16-21, 24--26, 28, 35--47, 50-53, 56-
59, and 62---65 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Qualcomm Inc. App.
Br. 4.
Appeal2017-010617
Application 14/178,156
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' described and claimed invention relates generally to a
system and method for using biometrics to authenticate a user of a mobile
display device. See Spec. i174. 2
Claims 1, 48, and 60 are representative and read as follows (with the
disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A method of biometric authentication, comprising:
presenting an image on a display of a display device in an
indicated area for a user to touch, the indicated area
corresponding with a fingerprint acquisition system that is
located in a portion of the display, wherein the portion of the
display is less than the entire display;
presenting one or more application icons on the display,
each of the application icons corresponding to a software
application;
moving a representation of one of the application icons
onto the indicated area in response to indications from a touch
sensing system of a corresponding dragging movement of a
touching portion of a finger or thumb;
obtaining partial fingerprint data from at least a partial
finger touch in the area, the partial fingerprint data corresponding
to a touching portion of the finger or the thumb;
comparing the partial fingerprint data with master
fingerprint data of a rightful user; and
determining, based at least in part on the comparing
process, whether to invoke a function, wherein the determining
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed September 22, 2016
("Final Act."), Appellants' Appeal Brief filed February 15, 2017 ("App.
Br.") and Reply Brief filed August 11, 2017 ("Reply Br."), the Examiner's
Answer mailed June 30, 2017, and the original Specification filed February
11, 2014 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2017-010617
Application 14/178,156
involves determining whether to start a software application
corresponding to the one of the application icons in the indicated
area.
48. A method of biometric authorization, comprising:
presenting one or more icons on a display;
presenting an image on a display of a display device in an
indicated area for a user to touch, the indicated area
corresponding with a fingerprint acquisition system that is
located in a portion of the display, wherein the portion of the
display is less than the entire display;
receiving an indication that a user is interacting with at
least one of the icons presented, wherein receiving the indication
that the user is interacting with an icon involves receiving an
indication from a touch sensing system that a digit is touching an
area of the display corresponding to one of the presented icons
and receiving an indication from the touch sensing system of a
dragging motion of the digit towards the indicated area;
acquiring biometric information from the digit, during the
user interaction with the icon, when the digit is positioned in a
fingerprinting sensing area; and
invoking a function based, at least in part, on the acquired
biometric information.
60. A display device, comprising:
a display;
a touch sensing system;
a fingerprint acquisition system; and
a control system configured for:
controlling the display to present an image
indicating an area outside of a display area of the display
device for a user to touch, the indicated area
corresponding with a location at least a portion of the
fingerprint acquisition system;
3
Appeal2017-010617
Application 14/178,156
controlling the display to present one or more
application icons on the display device, each of the
application icons corresponding to a software application;
controlling the display to move a representation of
one of the application icons towards the indicated area in
response to indications from the touch sensing system of a
corresponding dragging movement of the touching portion
of a finger or a thumb;
obtaining, via the fingerprint acquisition system,
partial fingerprint data from at least a partial finger touch
in the area, the partial fingerprint data corresponding to the
touching portion of the finger or the thumb;
comparing the partial fingerprint data with master
fingerprint data of a rightful user; and
determining, based at least in part on the comparing
process, whether to authorize a transaction, start a
personalized application, or unlock the apparatus, wherein
the determining involves determining whether to start a
software application corresponding to the one of the
application icons in the indicated area.
App. Br. 38, 42--44 (Claims App.).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 11, 22, 23, 29, and 60 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzpatrick et al.
(EP 0593386 A2; published Apr. 20, 1994) ("Fitzpatrick"), in view of Slaby
et al. (US 2012/0218231 Al; published Aug. 30, 2012) ("Slaby"), and
further in view of Siurumaa et al. (US 2013/0132906 Al; published May 23,
2013) ("Siurumaa").
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fitzpatrick, in view of Slaby, in view of Siurumaa, and
4
Appeal2017-010617
Application 14/178,156
further in view of Ting (US 2002/0174346 Al; published Nov. 21, 2002)
("Ting").
Claims 5, 9, and 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fitzpatrick, in view of Slaby, in view of Siurumaa, and
further in view of Orr (US 2008/0136587 Al; published June 12, 2008)
("Orr").
Claims 14, 15, 27, 61, and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Fitzpatrick, in view of Slaby, in view of Siurumaa,
and further in view of Gandhi (US 2012/0191568 Al; published July 26,
2012) ("Gandhi").
Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fitzpatrick, in view of Slaby, in view of Siurumaa, and
further in view of Thompson et al. (US 2014/0198960 Al; published July
17, 2014) ("Thompson").
Claims 48 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fitzpatrick, in view of Slaby, in view of Siurumaa, and
further in view ofVieta et al. (US 2014/0003678 Al; published Jan. 2, 2014)
("Vieta").
Claim 54 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Fitzpatrick, in view of Slaby, in view of Siurumaa, in view of Vieta,
and further in view of Orr.
Claim 55 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Fitzpatrick, in view of Slaby, in view of Siurumaa, in view of Vieta,
and further in view of Thompson.
Claim 67 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Fitzpatrick, in view of Slaby, in view of Siurumaa, in view of Vieta, in
5
Appeal2017-010617
Application 14/178,156
view of Gandhi, and further in view of Lindberg et al.
(US 2012/0124512 Al; published May 17, 2012) ("Lindberg").
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 14, 15,
22, 23, 27, 29-32, and 66 under§ 103
The Examiner finds the combination of cited references teaches or
suggests "presenting an image on a display of a display device in an
indicated area for a user to touch, the indicated area corresponding with a
fingerprint acquisition system that is located in a portion of the display,
wherein the portion of the display is less than the entire display," as recited
in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 22 and
29. See Final Act. 3-7. More specifically, the Examiner finds Fitzpatrick
discloses a computer system including: a touch screen that displays a
graphical object representing a touch screen field; and a fingerprint
recognition device that analyzes a fingerprint of an operator's fingertip
placed on the touch screen field. See Final Act. 3 (citing Fitzpatrick 2: 18;
3:58); see also Fitzpatrick 3:48--4:24; Fig. 3. The Examiner further finds
Slaby teaches a device that calibrates touch screen sensors using biometric
data from a biometric sensor, where a first touch sensor overlays a display
and a second touch sensor is adjacent to the display. See Final Act. 4 (citing
Slaby i-fi-f 15, 36; Fig. 9; claim 3); see also Slaby i-fi-f 18, 20, 32, 37; Fig. 1.
Appellants argue the combination of cited references fails to teach or
suggest the aforementioned element of claim 1, and similar elements of
claims 22 and 29. See App. Br. 18-20. More specifically, Appellants argue
Slaby fails to teach or suggest "a fingerprint acquisition system that is
6
Appeal2017-010617
Application 14/178,156
located in a portion of the display" for two reasons: (1) in every disclosed
implementation of Slaby, a biometric sensor is shown to be outside of the
area of a display; and (2) the touch sensors disclosed in Slaby do not teach or
suggest the claimed "fingerprint acquisition system" because the touch
sensors are not capable of functioning as a fingerprint acquisition system.
See App. Br. 22-26 (citing Slaby i-fi-f 19, 21, 36; Abstract; Figs. 1, 9).
In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner additionally finds Fig. 3 of
Fitzpatrick discloses multiple touch screen fields which are each a portion of
a display less than the entire display. See Ans. 4 (citing Fitzpatrick at
Fig. 3). The Examiner further finds Slaby teaches an embodiment in which
the device does not utilize a biometric sensor, and where a touch sensor
located within a display of the device detects biometric data of a user at one
or more contact points. See Ans. 5---6 (citing Slaby i1 3 8; Fig. 10).
In Appellants' Reply Brief, Appellants argue there is no indication in
Fitzpatrick that the disclosed touch screen fields illustrated in Figure 3 are
limited to the enumerated areas 54--68. See Reply Br. 5 (citing Fitzpatrick at
Fig. 3). Appellants further argue, although paragraph 38 of Slaby refers to
biometric data captured or otherwise detected at a touch sensor illustrated in
Figure 10 of Slaby, there is no indication in the aforementioned paragraph
that the "biometric data" is anything more than a size of user input, and,
thus, there is no mention in Slaby of obtaining fingerprint data via the touch
sensor. See Reply Br. 5---6 (citing Slaby i138; Fig. 10).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. We agree with
Appellants that Slaby's biometric sensor fails to teach or suggest the claimed
"fingerprint acquisition system that is located in a portion of the display,"
because Slaby discloses that the biometric sensor is located outside of the
7
Appeal2017-010617
Application 14/178,156
display. See Slaby i-fi-120, 36, 37; Figs. 1, 9. However, we agree with the
Examiner that Slaby discloses an embodiment of the device where a touch
sensor (as opposed to the biometric sensor) captures biometric data (e.g.,
fingerprint data), and further discloses that the touch sensor is located within
the display. See Slaby i1 3 8; Fig. 10. We further agree with the Examiner
that both Fitzpatrick's touch screen fields and Slaby's touch sensors at least
suggest a fingerprint acquisition system located in a portion of the display
where the portion of the display is less than the entire display. See Ans. 4---6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 22, and
29 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We also sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2-5, 9, 11, 14, 15, 23, 27, 30-32, and 66, which depend
from one of claims 1, 22, and 29, and which are not argued separately.
Rejection of Claims 33 and 34 under §103
The Examiner additionally finds the combination of cited references
teaches or suggests "an ultrasonic imaging system," as recited in claim 33,
and "an ultrasonic sensor array; and an ultrasonic transmitter," as recited in
claim 34. See Final Act. 22-24. More specifically, the Examiner finds
Thompson discloses a biometric sensor that is a fingerprint sensor, where the
fingerprint sensor is one of a variety of types, such as a piezoelectric array.
See Final Act. 23-24 (citing Thompson i127). According to the Examiner,
because Appellants' Specification discloses that the claimed "ultrasonic
transmitter" can be a piezoelectric transmitter that generates ultrasonic
waves, Thompson's biometric sensor teaches the claimed "ultrasonic
imaging system," recited in claim 33, and the claimed "ultrasonic sensor
8
Appeal2017-010617
Application 14/178,156
array" and "ultrasonic transmitter" recited in claim 34. See Final Act. 23-24
(citing Spec. i-f 155).
Appellants argue the combination of cited references fails to teach or
suggest the respective aforementioned elements of claims 33 and 34. See
App. Br. 33-34. More specifically, Appellants argue Thompson fails to
teach or suggest an ultrasonic imaging system, an ultrasonic sensor array, or
an ultrasonic transmitter because Thompson fails to use the terms
"ultrasound" or "ultrasonic" in describing the biometric sensor, and because
Appellants' Specification cannot be used as prior art to reject the claims.
See App. Br. 34--35; see also Reply Br. 16.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. A claim under
examination is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the underlying specification. See In re American Acad. of Science Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We agree with the Examiner
that Appellants' Specification discloses an embodiment where an ultrasonic
transmitter is a piezoelectric transmitter. See Spec. i-f 155. Thus, we
conclude the Examiner's interpretation of the claimed "ultrasonic imaging
system [comprising] an ultrasonic sensor array; and an ultrasonic
transmitter" is reasonable in light of Appellants' Specification. We further
agree with the Examiner's findings that Thompson teaches or suggests the
aforementioned elements of claims 33 and 34. See Final Act. 22-24.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 33 and 34 for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
9
Appeal2017-010617
Application 14/178,156
Rejection of Claims 48, 49, 54, and 55 under§ 103
Similar to their arguments regarding claims 1, 22, and 29, Appellants
argue the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest
"presenting an image on a display of a display device in an indicated area for
a user to touch, the indicated area corresponding with a fingerprint
acquisition system that is located in a portion of the display, wherein the
portion of the display is less than the entire display," as recited in
independent claim 48. See App. Br. 29--31. However, as previously
discussed, we do not find Appellants' arguments regarding claims 1, 22, and
29 persuasive. Thus, we are not persuaded by this argument for the same
reasons.
Appellants further argue the combination of cited references also fails
to teach or suggest "acquiring biometric information from the digit, during
the user interaction with the icon, when the digit is positioned in a
fingerprinting sensing area," as recited in claim 48. See App. Br. 29, 32.
More specifically, Appellants argue Vieta fails to teach acquiring biometric
information from a digit during a user interaction with an icon where the
user interaction involves the digit touching an area of the display
corresponding to the icon and dragging the digit toward an area located in
the display. See App. Br. 32. Instead, as argued by Appellants, Vieta
teaches acquiring biometric information from a digit that is touching a
fingerprint sensor that is outside of the display. See App. Br. 32-33 (citing
Vieta at Fig. 3).
We are persuaded by this argument. Although we agree with the
Examiner that Vieta teaches acquiring biometric information from a digit
when a digit is positioned in a fingerprinting sensing area and engaged in a
10
Appeal2017-010617
Application 14/178,156
dragging motion (see Final Act. 10; see also Ans. 9-11 ), we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that Vieta teaches or
suggests acquiring biometric information from the digit during an
interaction involving the digit touching an area of the display corresponding
to an icon and dragging the digit toward an area located in the display.
Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 48 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We also do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 49, 54, and 55, which depend
from claim 4 8. 3
Rejection of Claims 60, 61, and 67 under §103
Appellants additionally argue the combination of cited references fails
to teach or suggest "controlling the display to present an image indicating an
area outside of a display area of the display device for a user to touch, the
indicated area corresponding with a location at least a portion of the
fingerprint acquisition system," and "controlling the display to move a
representation of one of the application icons towards the indicated area in
response to indications from the touch sensing system of a corresponding
dragging movement of the touching portion of a finger or a thumb," as
recited in independent claim 60. More specifically, Appellants argued the
Final Office Action failed to address the aforementioned elements, and
instead, rejected claim 60 "under the same rationale as claim 1." See App.
Br. 28 (citing Final Act. 7).
3 Appellants provide additional arguments regarding claim 55, but we do not
reach these additional arguments because claim 55 depends upon claim 48,
and the issue raised by Appellants' argument regarding claim 48 is also
dispositive of the rejection of claim 55.
11
Appeal2017-010617
Application 14/178,156
In the Examiner's Answer, in response to Appellants' argument, the
Examiner finds Slaby teaches multiple variations and design choices of the
device, and further finds Slaby teaches an alternative design choice where a
biometric sensor is located in a button that is outside of a display. See
Ans. 8-9 (citing Slaby i-fi-f 15, 36; Figs. 1, 9). In Appellants' Reply Brief, in
response to the Examiner's additional findings in the Examiner's Answer,
Appellants argue the Examiner's additional findings fail to establish that
Slaby teaches or suggests controlling the device to present an image
indicating an area outside of a display area of a display device for a user to
touch, the indicated area corresponding with a location of at least a portion
of a fingerprint acquisition system. See Reply Br. 11.
We are persuaded of Examiner error. As a threshold matter, we agree
with Appellants that the Examiner's findings in the Final Office Action do
not address the aforementioned elements of claim 60. See Final Act. 7.
Regarding the Examiner's findings in the Examiner's Answer, although we
agree with the Examiner that Slaby teaches a biometric sensor located
outside of a display area of a display device (see Ans. 8), we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that Slaby teaches
or suggests controlling the display device to present an image indicating an
area outside of a display area of a display device for a user to touch, the
indicated area corresponding with a location of at least a portion of a
fingerprint acquisition system.
Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 60 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We also do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 61 and 67, which depend from
claim 60.
12
Appeal2017-010617
Application 14/178,156
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 9, 11, 14, 15, 22,
23, 27, 29-34, and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 48, 49, 54, 55, 60, 61,
and 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
13