Ex Parte Skinner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 26, 2013

11268155 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DAVID N. SKINNER and YANCY CHEN ____________________ Appeal 2011-004756 Application 11/268,155 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004756 Application 11/268,155 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 3–8, and 13–26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim The claimed subject matter relates to securing access to removable memory devices on the basis of an identity authenticated by a biometric parameter (Spec., p. 2, ll. 2–5). Claim 8 is illustrative and is reproduced below with key limitations emphasized: 8. An apparatus for securing data on a removable memory device comprising: a data processing apparatus; a removable memory device removably coupled to said data processing apparatus; a housing wherein the housing contains said removable memory device; an access controller, coupled to said data processing apparatus and said removable memory device, wherein said access controller secures access to said removable memory device; a biometric key interface wherein the biometric key interface state is dependent on a biometric mechanism provided by a user wherein the biometric mechanism establishes an identity of said user; and an indicator wherein the appearance of said indicator indicates a status of access permissions of said removable memory device based upon receipt of the biometric mechanism by the biometric key interface; a security processor coupled to said access controller and said biometric key interface, Appeal 2011-004756 Application 11/268,155 3 wherein said security processor controls said functions of said access controller and said security processor, via said biometric key interface, determines a state of said biometric key interface, wherein said security processor, via an identity authorization system module, compares said state of said biometric key interface to a criteria to establish identity of said user, wherein said security processor, via an access control module, controls said functions of said access controller, based on said authentication function by said security processor, and said access controller controls access to said removable memory device, and wherein said controlling of access to said removable memory device comprises controlling a physical removal of said removable memory device from said housing. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Poo US 2003/0005337 A1 Jan. 2, 2003 Maillot US 6,745,330 B1 Jun. 1, 2004 Yoshida US 2005/0005131 A1 Jan. 6, 2005 Bazakos US 7,362,210 B2 Apr. 22, 2008 Abbott WO 00/42491 A1 Jul. 20, 2000 Rejections The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 13–15, and 17–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abbott and Maillot (Ans. 3–8). Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abbott, Maillot, and Yoshida (Ans. 9). Appeal 2011-004756 Application 11/268,155 4 Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abbott, Maillot, and Bazakos (Ans. 10). Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 17–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Poo and Maillot (Ans. 10–13). Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Poo, Maillot, and Yoshida (Ans. 13–14). Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Poo, Maillot, and Bazakos (Ans. 14–15). Issues Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issues: 1. Whether the Examiner erred in finding “controlling of access to said removable memory device [based on said authentication function by said security processor] comprises controlling a physical removal of said removable memory device from said housing,” as recited in claim 8, taught or suggested by the teachings of Abbott or Poo combined with Maillot. 2. Whether the Examiner erred in finding “an indicator wherein the appearance of said indicator indicates a status of access permissions of said removable memory device based upon receipt of the biometric mechanism by the biometric key interface,” as recited in claim 8, taught or suggested by Abbott. 3. Whether the Examiner erred in finding “an indicator wherein the appearance of said indicator indicates a status of access permissions of said removable memory device based upon receipt of the biometric mechanism by the biometric key interface,” as recited in claim 8, taught or suggested by Poo. Appeal 2011-004756 Application 11/268,155 5 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, and have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. First Issue Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Abbott and Maillot (App. Br. 12–13) or the combination of Poo and Maillot (App. Br. 19) each satisfies independent claim 8’s recitation of “controlling of access to said removable device [based on said authentication function by said security processor] comprises controlling a physical removal of said removable memory device from said housing.” Similar contentions are made for independent claim 1 (App. Br. 7–11, 15– 18; Reply Br. 1–4, 7–10), which recites a corresponding limitation. Abbott discloses a “personal key having input and output devices integrated therewith to provide for increased security” (Abbott, p. 1, ll. 13– 15), including a biometric sensor that “measures characteristics of the person holding the key (such as fingerprints) to confirm that the person possessing the key is the actual owner of the key” (id., p. 6, ll. 13–15). Poo discloses a “portable data storage and access control device having biometrics-based authentication capabilities” (Poo ¶1). The Examiner separately combines these teachings with Maillot, which discloses a removable peripheral device connectable to a computer system with a software-controlled lock mechanism (Maillot, col. 2, ll. 8–13) (Ans. 5–6, 11–12). Appeal 2011-004756 Application 11/268,155 6 The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Maillot’s teaching of software-controlled locking of removable peripheral devices to Abbott’s biometrically controlled personal key or to Poo’s biometrically controlled portable data storage (Ans. 15–16, 17–18). Abbott and Poo both address security issues arising from the storage of data on easily portable devices (see Abbott, p. 13, ll. 1–6; Poo ¶5). Maillot also addresses security issues relating to portable data-storage devices (Maillot, col. 1, ll. 13–16). The Examiner reasons that because such security issues are addressed by software (in the case of Abbott) or firmware (in the case of Poo), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the biometric security taught by Abbott or Poo with the physical security taught by Maillot (Ans. 16, 18). The Examiner’s reasoning supports the legal conclusion of obviousness because it shows that the claimed subject matter is a predictable combination of the known software- controlled locking and biometric security devices taught in Poo and Abbott. . See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Appellants contend that the USB socket lock of Maillot is used for a different purpose and does not operate in the same fashion as the devices of Abbott or Poo, particularly arguing that “[n]owhere does Maillot disclose[] that its USB socket lock is actuated based upon a user’s interaction with the peripheral device itself” (see, e.g., App. Br. 8, 9). We are not persuaded by this argument because it attacks Maillot individually when the Examiner has, in fact, relied on the combined teachings of the references. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appeal 2011-004756 Application 11/268,155 7 Second Issue Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that Abbott teaches or suggests “an indicator wherein the appearance of said indicator indicates a status of access permissions of said removable memory device based upon receipt of the biometric mechanism by the biometric key interface,” as recited in independent claim 8 (App. Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 4– 7). Similar contentions are made for independent claim 21 (App. Br. 13–14; see also Reply Br. 4–7), which recites a corresponding limitation. Abbott discloses a light emitting device that “provides the user of the personal key 200 a visual indication of the operations being performed by the personal key 200” (Abbott, p. 28, ll. 21–22). Because operations performed by the personal key include biometric authorizations (see, e.g., Abbott, p. 6, ll. 12–15), we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that this disclosure reasonably suggests “indicat[ing] a status of access permissions of said removable memory device based upon receipt of the biometric mechanism by the biometric key interface” (see Ans. 16–17). Third Issue Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that Poo teaches or suggests “an indicator wherein the appearance of said indicator indicates a status of access permissions of said removable memory device based upon receipt of the biometric mechanism by the biometric key interface,” as recited in independent claim 8 (App. Br. 18–19; Reply Br. 10– 11). Similar contentions are made for independent claim 21 (App. Br. 19– 20; see also Reply Br. 10–11), which recites a corresponding limitation. Appeal 2011-004756 Application 11/268,155 8 Poo discloses a light emitting device that “flashes when data in [the] portable device is being accessed [and] lights up to indicate that an authentication process is underway” (Poo ¶ 35). Because Poo limits access to data to those who are biometrically authenticated (see, e.g., Poo ¶¶ 56, 57), we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that this disclosure reasonably suggests “indicat[ing] a status of access permissions of said removable memory device based upon receipt of the biometric mechanism by the biometric key interface” (see Ans. 18). Conclusion On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abbott or Poo in combination with Maillot. We accordingly sustain those rejections, as well as the rejections of independent claim 1, which recites a limitation corresponding to Issue 1, and of independent claim 21, which recites a limitation corresponding to issues 2 and 3. We also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 3–7, 13–20, and 22–26, for which Appellants do not provide separate arguments for patentability. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–8, and 13–26 is affirmed. Appeal 2011-004756 Application 11/268,155 9 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 ELD