Ex Parte YamaguchiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201612669173 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/669,173 01114/2010 71799 7590 06/02/2016 Mr, Ryoichi Harada 2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW SUITE 560 Washington, DC 20037-3213 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tomoharu Yamaguchi 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. J-10-0011 2122 EXAMINER BRANSKE, HILARY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2437 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2016 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): necipca@necam.com Yuki.Kandathil@necam.com Ayano.Reid@necam.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TOMOHARU YAMAGUCHI Appeal2014-009194 Application 12/669,173 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 2 1 The Appeal Brief identifies NEC Corporation, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 30, 2014, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief (filed August 18, 2014, Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed June Appeal2014-009194 Application 12/669, 173 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to an authentication control system. See Abstract. Claims 1 and 13-15 are independent. The claims have not been argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A control device that controls a plurality of functions, compnsmg: an authentication unit that authenticates external devices that exist outside the control device; and a function controlling unit that controls the functions depending on the number of authenticated devices able to be authenticated by the authentication unit, and the number of unauthenticated devices not abie to be authenticated by the authentication unit, wherein the function controlling unit selects, among from the plurality of functions, a function to be restricted depending on the number of the authenticated devices and the number of the unauthenticated devices, and restricts the selected function. 18, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed July 29, 2013, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed January 14, 2010, "Spec.") for their respective details. 2 Appeal2014-009194 Application 12/669, 173 References and Rejections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: O'Mahony US 6,457,129 B2 Sept. 24, 2002 Croome US 2004/0014423 Al Jan.22,2004 Kitagawa US 2005/0278776 Al Dec. 15, 2005 Williams US 2006/0021005 Al Jan.26,2006 Turnbull WO 2006/103387 Al Oct. 5, 2006 The claims stand rejected as follows: 1. Claims 1, 7, 9, and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kitagawa and O'Mahony. Final Act. 3-11. 2. Claims 2-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kitagawa, O'l\1ahony, and Croome. Final Act. 11-15. 3. Claims 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kitagawa, O'Mahony, and Turnbull. Final Act. 15-17. 4. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kitagawa, O'Mahony, and Williams. Final Act. 17-18. 5. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kitagawa, O'Mahony, Turnbull, and Williams. Final Act. 19. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-15 in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this 3 Appeal2014-009194 Application 12/669, 173 Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims are unpatentable over the cited combination of references. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. We provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellant's arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4---6. CLAIMS 1, 7, 9, AND 12-15: OBVIOUSNESS OVER KITAGAWA AND O'MAHONY Appellant contends the cited art fails to teach or suggest "controlling functions depending on the number of authenticated devices able to be authenticated, and the number of unauthenticated devices not able to be authenticated," as recited in independent Claims 1 and 13-15. App. Br. 6. The Examiner finds Kitagawa discloses an RFID reader unit which searches for RFID tags that are present in its vicinity and checks those RFID tags against a list of surrounding RFIDs for personal authentication. Final Act. 3. Where there is a coincidence (i.e., up to 8 of the 10 such RFID tags) between the IDs in the list, then function becomes available. Id. Kitagawa 4 Appeal2014-009194 Application 12/669, 173 accumulates the number of successes and failures for each listed RFID tag in list to provide degrees of reliability of each RFID tag. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds this disclosure teaches the accused limitation. Final Act. 3. The Examiner further finds that Kitagawa discloses that a previous RFID tag mounting frequency is multiplied by a corresponding weighted coefficient for each article provided with RFID tags that is subjected to a checkup, for example. If the total sum of calculations thus obtained exceeds a predetermined threshold, it is determined that the personal authentication is successful. Ans. 4. In view of this disclosure, the Examiner finds Kitagawa teaches accumulating the number of successfully and unsuccessfully authenticated devices. Id. Appellant replies that Kitagawa's "checkup failures" relates to the number of times that a checkup failed for a given device. Reply Br. 1. Appellant argues Kitagawa's "checkup failures" does not teach "the number of unauthenticated devices not able to be authenticated," as claimed. Id. Appellant contends that Kitagawa teaches an archive stores the number of successful and failed checkups for each RFID, but that this teaches the number of failed attempts for each RFID checked more than once. Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues Kitagawa teaches a "weighted coefficient" and a "put-on coefficient" which receive lower values that the more times the checkup fails. Thus, with increasing number of failures of authentication, the less likely is that, specific RFID to contribute to personal authentication 5 Appeal2014-009194 Application 12/669, 173 (and subsequent function availability upon succeeding in the personal authentication). Id. Moreover, Appellant contends Kitagawa teaches the coefficient is used to eliminate RFIDs that are attached to articles not worn by the user. Appellant argues Kitagawa's coefficients eliminate those RFID tags that are not able to be authenticated, which, according to Appellant, is diametrically opposed to the claimed "controlling functions depending on ... [and] the number of unauthenticated devices not able to be authenticated." Id. Contrary to Appellant, the Examiner finds Kitagawa explicitly discloses: "RFIDs, a RFID combination frequency, and checkup failures and successes are accumulated; and frequency information for these items is reflected on checkup weighting." Ans. 3--4. The Examiner further finds Kitagawa discloses: "[a] previous RFID tag mounting frequency is multiplied by a corresponding weighted coefficient for each article provided with RFID tags that is subjected to a checkup, for example. If the total sum of calculations thus obtained exceeds a predetermined threshold, it is determined that the personal authentication is successful." Id. at 4. In view of these disclosures, the Examiner finds Kitagawa teaches accumulating both checkup successes, i.e., the number of authenticated devices able to be authenticated, and checkup failures, i.e., the number unauthenticated devices not able to be authenticated. Ans. 4. Appellant argues the "checkup failures" taught by Kitagawa do not relate to the claimed "number of unauthenticated devices not able to be 6 Appeal2014-009194 Application 12/669, 173 authenticated" because Kitagawa teaches these "failures" relate to RFID devices present on a list of RFIDs that fail to be read. Reply Br. 1. Appellant fails to persuade us that the Examiner errs in finding that where a listed RFID device is not able to be read, that device does not correspond to a device which is not able to be authenticated. We are not persuaded the Examiner has erred in rejecting Claims 1, 7, 9, and 12-15. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2---6, 8, 10, AND 11 Appellant contends Claims 2---6, 8, 10, and 11 are patentable in view of their dependence from an independent claim. App. Br. 6. In view of our forgoing discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred. DECISION The rejection of Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation