Ex Parte Mercredi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2012

10398360 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DWYANE MERCREDI, ROD FREY,
and GREGORY C. JENSEN
____________

Appeal 2010-005120
Application 10/398,360
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-89. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2010-005120
Application 10/398,360

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Claims 1 and 34, which are illustrative of the invention, read as
follows:
1. A method of biometrically controlling a user’s access to a
computer adapted to communicate with a network having at
least one server associated therewith, comprising:
storing at the server, enrollment BIR data
correlated with a privileged user; causing an accessing
user to provide capture BIR data to the computer and
causing the computer to communicate with the server via
the network; and
evaluating the capture BIR data with the
enrollment BIR data to determine whether the accessing
user is to be given access to the network as the privileged
user via the computer, and
if so, thereafter storing a copy of the
enrollment BIR data in the computer for later use.

34. A method of biometrically controlling a user’s access to
information retrievable via a computer, wherein the user
normally has to provide at the computer both an ID and capture
BIR data to gain access to the information, further comprising:
after storing a copy of enrollment BIR data, on a
subsequent attempt by the accessing user to gain access
to the information, causing the user to provide the
capture BIR data to the computer without providing the
ID; and
evaluating the capture BIR data against the stored
enrollment BIR data to determine whether the user is to
be given access to the information.

1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,”
filed June 3, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 26, 2010), and
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 26, 2010).
Appeal 2010-005120
Application 10/398,360

3
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-10, 19-59, 68-84, and 89 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Brown (US 6,618,806 B1, Sep. 9, 2003)
(Ans. 3).
Claims 11-18, 60-67, and 85-88 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown (Ans. 3-5).

Appellants’ Contentions2
Claim 1
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because the cited portions of Brown do not teach a “storing a copy
of the enrollment BIR data in the computer for later use” (App. Br.
8-10; Reply Br. 2-3).
2. Appellants further argue that Brown fails to teach or suggest
“locally storing a copy of the enrollment BIR for later use in
response to a BIR match from the server” (App. Br. 10-11)
(emphasis ours).
3. Appellants also argue that “[w]hat is key is that server and the
computer are two physically distinct devices” (Reply Br. 2)
(footnote omitted).

2 Appellants focus their contentions on claims 1 and 34, and argue the
patentability of the remaining claims based on the same reasons presented
for claims 1 and 34, allowing those claims stand or fall with representative
claims 1 and 34 (see App. Br. 8-13).
Appeal 2010-005120
Application 10/398,360

4
Claim 34
4. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 34
because the cited portions of Brown do not teach a “causing the
user to provide the capture BIR data to the computer without
providing the ID” (App. Br. 11-13).

Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that in Brown “registered BIRS are
stored/acquired by local clients subsequent to a successful logon.” Ans. 5
(citing Fig 2; Col. 3, ll. 39-40). The Examiner next finds that in Brown
both the SAF client and the NT client modules may be used to
verify the captured BIR with a stored BIR in order to verify the
user locally subsequent to a successful logon. In short both
modules possess a capacity and in fact actually stores the BIR
locally within the NT client and SAF clients. '806 “maintains a
database 221 of BIRs for a plurality of registered/enrolled
users,” col. 4, lines 1-3 et seq. and line 49-53 et seq. which are
the pool of enrolled/registered users that are authorized to
access the system, it is from the stored pool of authorized users
that the local credentials are transmitted to NT domain and SAF
clients machines/system[].

Ans. 11.
Therefore, the Examiner finds that Brown discloses “the capacity to
verify and authenticate users itself; which, would not be possible if it did not
store and capture the credential within the BSP and client modules.” Ans. 8
(citing Col. 3, ll. 22-24 and ll. 55 et. seq.). As a result, the Examiner finds
that Brown describes “storing a copy of the enrollment BIR data in the
computer for later use,” as required by representative claim 1. Ans. 9-13.
Appeal 2010-005120
Application 10/398,360

5
Claim 34
The Examiner also finds that Brown “shows that a local computer
may be accessed after a successful match of the biometric login, subsequent
to a logon at col. 3, lines 39-40, without any input of the users ID.” Ans. 6.
As a result, the Examiner finds that Brown describes “causing the user to
provide the capture BIR data to the computer without providing the ID,” as
required by representative claim 34. Ans. 15-17.

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated
by Brown because the reference does not teach a “storing a copy of the
enrollment BIR data in the computer for later use”?
2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 34 as being anticipated
by Brown because the reference does not teach “causing the user to provide
the capture BIR data to the computer without providing the ID”?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner and adopt as our own (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3-17). However,
we highlight and address specific findings for emphasis as follows.
As to Appellants’ above contention 1, we disagree with Appellants’
arguments. We note that the Examiner has identified the relevant portions of
Brown and has provided sufficient explanation with corresponding citations
to various parts of the reference for teaching the feature disputed in
Appeal 2010-005120
Application 10/398,360

6
Appellants’ contention 1 (Ans. 8-10). For emphasis, we note that the
Examiner cites to portions of Brown in columns 2-5 that describe storing a
copy of the enrollment BIR data in the computer for later use (Ans. 11-12).
In particular, we find that Brown describes that the enrollment BIR data is
already entered and stored in the computer for later use. See Brown, Col. 3,
ll. 21-67.
We also find that Brown discloses unlocking a work station that is
biometrically enabled. As described in Brown (Col. 3, ll. 21-67), before the
work station connects to a network, the biometric data enables access to the
workstation. We thus find that the BIR data must be locally stored. We also
note that claim 1 is drafted such that it reads on a computer that is locked
even before it is connected to a network. We also find that to change the
BIR data, one has to be connected to the network. In Brown, if initially BIR
data is needed to be stored in the computer in conjunction with Enrollment
BIR data (when the network is involved) and it is stored locally, then every
time the screen saver comes up that would be the local copy of the
enrollment BIR data. We find that the screensaver is a local function that is
controlled by the computer. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments.
As to Appellants’ above contentions 2 and 3, relating to locally
storing a copy of the enrollment BIR, and the server and the computer being
two physically distinct devices, Appellants’ arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 1 neither recites where or
with respect to which entities the enrollment BIR is stored, nor the limitation
of “two physically distinct devices.”
Appeal 2010-005120
Application 10/398,360

7
Claim 34
With regard to Appellants’ contention 4, we agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 6, 16-17) that Brown explicitly discloses that “only the user’s
biometric is required to unlock a biometrically enabled workstation” which
meets the claimed “causing the user to provide the capture BIR data to the
computer without providing the ID.” See also Col. 3, ll. 39-40.

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, we conclude that:
1. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 by finding that
Brown teaches a “storing a copy of the enrollment BIR data in the computer
for later use.”
2. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 34 by finding that
Brown teaches “causing the user to provide the capture BIR data to the
computer without providing the ID.”
3. Claims 1-89 are not patentable.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-89 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc