Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 24, 2020

2019003146 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2020)

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.
14/971,524 12/16/2015 Gary D. Cudak RPS920150216-US-NP 6635
55128 7590 09/24/2020
LENOVO - JVL
C/O LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN
6123 PEBBLE GARDEN CT.
AUSTIN, TX 78739
EXAMINER
GOLRIZ, ARYA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2498
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2020 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):
LESLIE@VL-PATENTS.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte GARY D. CUDAK, NATHAN J. PETERSON, AMY L. ROSE,
JENNIFER J. LEE-BARON, BRYAN L. YOUNG, and JOHN S. CROWE1
_____________

Appeal 2019-003146
Application 14/971,524
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JASON V. MORGAN,
and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5–9, 12–16, and 20. Appeal Br.
1. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicants” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appeal Brief identifies Lenovo (Singapore) Pte.
Ltd., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003146
Application 14/971,524

2

Invention
The invention is directed to a method for authenticating a user of a
device. See Abstract. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Illustrative
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
selecting a plurality of content categories;
presenting, to a user of a device, a plurality of sets of
content items identified as being familiar to an actual user of
the device and a plurality of sets of comparable items that are
identified as being unfamiliar to the actual user of the device,
wherein each set of the content items and the comparable
items corresponds to a same one of the plurality of categories;
receiving a plurality of responses at the device from the
user after the presenting;
identifying a number of correct responses from the
plurality of responses,
wherein the authenticating is based on a number of
correct responses; and
authenticating the user based on the number of correct
responses.

Appeal 2019-003146
Application 14/971,524

3

Prior Art
Name2 Reference Date
Pering US 2004/0093527 A1 May 13, 3004
Lowry US 2013/0036461 A1 Feb. 7, 2013
Chaudhury US 8,856,541 B1 Oct. 7, 2014

Rejections3 at Issue4
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Pering and Lowry. Final Act. 4–9.
2. Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Pering, Lowry, and Chaudhury. Final Act. 9−10.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error.

2 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor only.
3 The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file
provisions of the AIA. Final Act 2.
4 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed
July 30, 2018, the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed March 11, 2019, the Final
Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed February 27, 2018, the Examiner’s
Answer mailed January 10, 2019, and the Specification (“Spec.”) filed
December 16, 2015.
Appeal 2019-003146
Application 14/971,524

4

CLAIMS 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, AND 20: OBVIOUSNESS
OVER PERING AND LOWRY.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
presenting, to a user of a device, a plurality of sets of content
items identified as being familiar to an actual user of the device
and a plurality of sets of comparable items that are identified as
being unfamiliar to the actual user of the device.
Claims App’x.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds Pering teaches this limitation.
Final Act. 4 (quoting Pering, ¶ 35) (“At block 110, the photograph
authentication module selects multiple photographs from the set of decoy
photographs, and one or more photographs from the user’s photograph
collection, and causes the display of these photographs on the display of the
un-trusted public access terminal.”).
Appellant contends neither Pering, nor Lowry, teach selecting a
plurality of content categories. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant defines images, i.e.,
photographs, as a category. See Appeal Br. 7 (citing Spec., ¶ 28).
In the Answer, the Examiner cites alternative embodiments to find
Pering discloses selecting a plurality of categories:
At block 108, the module selects a set of other photographs
from the photograph database to be used as decoy
photographs. In one embodiment, the decoy photographs may
be selected at random from the set of all photographs in the
database other than the user’s own photographs.
Ans. 4 (quoting Pering, ¶ 34).
At block 110, the photograph authentication module selects
multiple photographs from the set of decoy photographs, and
one or more photographs from the user’s photograph
Appeal 2019-003146
Application 14/971,524

5

collection, and causes the display of these photographs on the
display of the un-trusted public access terminal.
Ans. 4–5 (quoting Pering, ¶ 35).
In another embodiment, familiar sounds rather than familiar
photographs may be used. An aural equivalent to the visually-
dependent photographic authentication would make the
technique feasible for blind users or for users in visually
“difficult” environments. For example, snippets from a user’s
music collection or recordings from a user’s “personal audio
recorder” device might provide a collection of easily
recognizable sound bites to be used.
Ans. 5 (quoting Pering, ¶ 39).
The Examiner finds “Pering does not disclose: . . . wherein each set of
the content items and the comparable items corresponds to a same one of the
plurality of categories,” but finds Lowry discloses this limitation. Final Act.
5–6 (citing Lowry, ¶¶ 11, 16). The Examiner further finds: “Lowry was
further cited to be combined with Pering to disclose that the content items
and comparable items correspond to the selected category.” Ans. 5.
Appellant “defines ‘category’ as being ‘images, music, documents or
portions of documents, movies or other media, a full or partial list of
installed applications on the device, a listing of frequently accessed
applications, or a listing of partial contact information, etc.’” Appeal Br. 7
(quoting Spec., ¶ 28). In view of this definition, Appellant argues Lowry
teaches only a single category of content items, i.e., “images.” Appeal Br.
6–7. Appellant argues Pering teaches a first embodiment where only a
single category is taught, i.e., “photographs.” Reply Br. 2 (citing Pering,
¶¶ 34, 35) (cited by the Examiner). Appellant argues Pering teaches an
alternative embodiment where only a different, single category is taught, i.e.,
“sounds.” Id.
Appeal 2019-003146
Application 14/971,524

6

We find the prior art teaches alternative embodiments wherein only a
single category is presented to a user. We find that the Examiner did not
meet the burden of establishing that the cited prior art teaches or suggests
“presenting, to a user of a device, a plurality of sets of content items,” as
recited in independent Claim 1 and as commensurately recited in
independent Claims 8 and 15. In view of the foregoing, we decline to
sustain the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20.

CLAIMS 7 AND 14: OBVIOUSNESS OVER PERING, LOWRY, AND CHAUDHURY.
Appellant contends the dependent claims are allowable in view of the
dependence from the independent claims. Appeal Br. 7.
The Examiner does not apply Chaudhury to teach the disputed
limitation. See Ans.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
7 and 14.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 6, 8,
9, 12, 13, 15,
16, 19, 20
103 Pering, Lowry 1, 2, 5, 6, 8,
9, 12, 13, 15,
16, 19, 20
7, 14 103 Pering, Lowry,
Chaudhury
7, 14
Overall 1, 2, 5–9,
12–16, 20

REVERSED