Ex Parte Burcham et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2019

14885239 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/885,239 10/16/2015
7590 03/26/2019
ADVANCED OPTICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
6767 Old Madison Pike
Suite 410
Huntsville, AL 35806
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joel Dean Burcham
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.
AOS0002USC 2715
EXAMINER
BECK,LERON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOEL DEAN BURCHAM, RICHARD LEON HARTMAN,
and WILLIAM CALEB LUCAS
Appeal2018-006044
Application 14/885,239
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LARRY J. HUME, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 7-10, and 16-20. 2 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Advanced Optical
Systems, Inc. Br. 2 (Suppl. App. Br., filed Nov. 13, 2017).
2 Claims 2--6 and 11-15 have been canceled previously.
Appeal2018-006044
Application 14/885,239
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a "non-contact mechanism that works
at varying distances away from the finger." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is illustrative
of the invention and reads as follows (formatting added to highlight the
disputed limitations):
1. A contactless fingerprint acquisition and processing
method, comprising:
detecting and acquiring an object image, wherein
acquiring the object image comprises receiving data from a first
detector assembly and a second detector assembly;
based on a determination that an object captured by the
object image is an enrollment card:
capturing a second object image associated including a
fingerprint image associated with the enrollment card;
processing the fingerprint image by differencing the data
received from first detector assembly with the data received
from the second detector assembly to increase a contrast
between ridges and valleys of the fingerprint image; and
enrolling the fingerprint image associated with the
enrollment card into a user fingerprint database;
based on a determination that the object associated with
the object image is not an enrollment card:
capturing a third object image;
converting the third object image into a user
fingerprint image by differencing the data received from
first detector assembly with the data received from the
second detector assembly to increase a contrast between
ridges and valleys of the user fingerprint image; and
at least one of identifying and verifying the user
fingerprint image using the user fingerprint database.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 10, and 19 under the judicially
created doctrine of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over
2
Appeal2018-006044
Application 14/885,239
claims 1, 10, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,165,177, in view of Rowe (US
2009/0245591 Al; pub. Oct. 1, 2009), in further view of Alfano (US
5,929,443; iss. July 27, 1999), and Tamai (US 2001/0026632 Al; pub.
Oct. 4, 2001). See Final Act. 4--7.
The Examiner also rejected claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, and 19 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Rowe, Alfano, and Tamai
and further added Sorek (US 2001/0041073 Al; pub. Nov. 15, 2001) to
reject claims 9, 18, and 20. See Final Act. 8-14.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejection
Appellants present no arguments in their Appeal Brief contesting the
obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19 and
propose the rejections be held in abeyance until allowable claims are
identified. See Appellants' Response (filed March 8, 2017). Accordingly,
we summarily sustain this rejection. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307,
1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("When the appellant fails to contest a ground of
rejection to the Board, ... the Board may treat any argument with respect to
that ground of rejection as waived.").
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)Rejections
Appellants assert "[t]he Examiner acknowledges that Rowe and
Alfano fail to teach or disclose the use of an enrolment [sic] card" and "cites
to Tamai as teaching the use of an enrollment card." Br. 6. Appellants
argue that, rather than analyzing a captured image to determine if it includes
an enrollment card or fingerprint, as recited in claim 1, Tamai describes "the
use of an enrollment card that is read by a reader/writer unit (220)," which
"reads data stored on the enrolment card." Id. According to Appellants,
3
Appeal2018-006044
Application 14/885,239
Tamai does not teach that an image is captured and then
analyzed to determine if the image depicts an enrollment card,
which then places the device into an enrollment mode. Tamai
simply does not teach or disclose that the camera unit (240) and
image processing unit (250) are used to determine whether a
captured image includes a fingerprint or an enrollment card and
then automatically proceeding with either enrolment or identity
verification. Rather, for a user of Tamai to enter an enrolment
mode, the user must insert the enrollment card into
reader/writer unit (220). The present invention does not require
the user of a reader/writer unit (220) and rather utilizes the
existing camera and image processing techniques to determine
if an image captured is that of the enrollment card or a
fingerprint.
Br. 6-7.
The Examiner responds that Appellants' representation of Tamai is
inaccurate because, using a camera and a processing unit, Tamai captures an
image that includes an ID card or enrollment card for identity verification.
Ans. 11-12 (citing Tamai ,r,r 5, 43, 56-57, 75, and 129). We do not agree
with the Examiner's conclusion. Tamai discloses a verification system used
to identify persons including "[a] camera unit and an image processing unit
for obtaining object images of body parts (such as fingerprints and irides
[sic]) by scanning, without physical contact; .... " Tamai Abstract. Tamai
further discloses "[a]n ID card 110, is used to supplement identity
verification based on biometric images." Tamai ,r 43. Therefore, Tamai
uses an ID card in addition to biometric detection. The other passages of
Tamai cited by the Examiner do not disclose the disputed claim limitation
and instead teach an ID card is used for storing identity verification
information. See e.g., Tamai ,r,r 77, 110-115. Therefore, we do not sustain
4
Appeal2018-006044
Application 14/885,239
the rejection of claim 1, independent claims 10 and 19, which recite similar
features, or the remaining claims dependent therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 7-10, and 16-20 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19 under the judicially
created doctrine of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting.
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. § 4150(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5