International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 2, 2021

2019005508 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)

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. 14/546,091 11/18/2014 Richard Redpath AUS920140266US1 4600 65362 7590 03/02/2021 TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP IBM Austin P.O. BOX 203518 AUSTIN, TX 78720 EXAMINER ZAIDI, SYED A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2432 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2021 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): USPTO@dockettrak.com tmunoz@tcciplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD REDPATH ___________ Appeal 2019-005508 Application 14/546,091 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2019-005508 Application 14/546,091 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter is directed to producing a digital identifier, which includes selecting a set of design elements for inclusion in the digital identifier, and selecting an associated digital identifier template. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A computer-implemented method for producing a digital identifier for use on a mobile user device, comprising: responsive to user input, selecting a set of design elements for inclusion in the digital identifier, the set of design elements comprising a digitized photograph of an individual associated with the digital identifier and a digitized signature of the individual, the digitized photograph being obtained through the use of a camera of the mobile user device, the digitized signature being obtained by the individual entering the signature via a user interface window presented on a screen of the mobile user device; responsive to user input, selecting a template for placement of the design elements within the digital identifier, the template comprising a template name; 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International Business Machines Corporation. (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal 2019-005508 Application 14/546,091 3 responsive to user input, selecting a set of user credentials for inclusion in the digital identifier; and using the selected design elements, template and user credentials to produce the digital identifier, the digital identifier representing a personal identification document; storing data associated with a plurality of individual instances of digital identifiers produced using the selected design elements, template and user credentials within a digital identifier data repository; and, providing an individual instance of the digital identifier to the mobile user device for use on the mobile user device, the individual instance of the digital identifier comprising the digital identifier produced using the selected design elements, template and user credentials. REFERENCES Name Reference Date Cross et al. US 2004/0162786 A1 Aug. 19, 2004 Vendrow et al. US 2010/0128291 A1 May 27, 2010 Asure HID Corporation, HID Global Asure ID 7.0 Software Application User 2011 Guide (Rev. 1.5) (2011) (“Asure”). 2011 REJECTIONS Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Asure, Cross, and Vendrow. Appeal 2019-005508 Application 14/546,091 4 OPINION We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 5) that the combination of Asure, Cross, and Vendrow would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the preamble recitation “producing a digital identifier for use on a mobile user device.” The Examiner found that the ID card personalization software of Asure, which includes a template for a photo and signature, corresponds to the recitation of “producing a digital identifier.” (Ans. 4.) The Examiner further found that Digital Identity Management System (DIMS) 100 of Cross, which can run on a cellular phone, corresponds to the recitation of “for use on a mobile user device.” (Id.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Asure relates to an ID card personalization software, such that a “new user interface and simplified processes make ID card template design and data entry an efficient, user friendly application.” (P. 9.) In particular, Asure provides for “use [of] a simple drag-and-drop visual interface, while Asure ID takes care of creating a custom database . . . behind the scenes” (p. 39), including photo and signature (p. 69). In one example, Asure provides for “a School ID Card Template that contains a student ID, Name and Photo and a School Parking Permit Template.” (P. 55.) Because Asure explains that ID card personalization software provides templates for ID card design, including photo and signature, Asure teaches the preamble recitation of “producing a digital identifier.” Cross relates to digital identity management (¶ 1), in particular, “DIMS [Digital Identity Management System] 100 [that] provide processes for application programs to perform authentication, authorization, Appeal 2019-005508 Application 14/546,091 5 encryption, and decryption using digital IDs” (¶ 25). Cross explains that “DIMS 100 can run on a variety of networked computer and stand-alone computer configurations,” for example, “physically small computing devices such as a PDA or cellular telephone” (¶ 30). Because Cross explains that DIMS 100 can run on small computing devices, such as a PDA or cellular telephone, Cross teaches the recitation “for use on a mobile user device.” Appellant argues that “nowhere within Asure, Cross or Vendrow, taken alone or in combination, is there any disclosure or suggestion of producing a digital identifier for use with a mobile user device, where the digital identifier represents a personal identification document.” (Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis omitted).) However, as discussed previously, the Examiner cited to the ID card personalization software of Asure for teaching the recitation of “producing a digital identifier” and cited to DIMS 100 of Cross, which can run on a cellular telephone, for teaching the recitation of “for use on a mobile user device.” (Ans. 4.) Appellant has not provided any persuasive arguments or evidence as to why the Examiner’s findings with respect to Asure and Cross are in error. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Asure, Cross, and Vendrow would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the preamble recitation of “producing a digital identifier for use on a mobile user device.” We are further unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 5) that the combination of Asure, Cross, and Vendrow would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation reciting “the digitized photograph being obtained through the use of a camera of the mobile user device.” Appeal 2019-005508 Application 14/546,091 6 The Examiner found that the ID card personalization software of Asure, which permits the user to select a digital camera, corresponds to the limitation “the digitized photograph being obtained through the use of a camera.” (Final Act. 5–6; see also Ans. 5.) The Examiner further found that camera subsystem 320 for mobile device 102 of Vendrow corresponds to the limitation “camera of the mobile user device.” (Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 5.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Asure further explains that the ID card personalization software permits the user to “Select Capture Image if working with a digital camera.” (P. 174.) Because Asure provides the user with the ability to work with a digital camera, Asure teaches the limitation “the digitized photograph being obtained through the use of a camera.” Vendrow relates to the dynamic generation of a fax document, such that “pre-configured templates can be stored either on a mobile device or on a fax server.” (Abstract.) Figure 3 of Vendrow illustrates a block diagram of mobile device 102 having peripherals interface 306 (¶ 23), coupled to a camera subsystem 320 (¶ 25). Because Vendrow explains that mobile device 102 of Vendrow includes camera subsystem 320, Vendrow teaches the limitation “use of a camera of the mobile user device.” Appellant argues that nowhere within the cited portion of Asure (nor anywhere else in Asure) is there any disclosure or suggestion of the digitized photograph being obtained through the use of a camera of the mobile user device (i.e., the mobile device that is producing the digital identifier and for use on the mobile user device). (Appeal Br. 5.) However, the Examiner cited to the ID card personalization software of Asure for teaching the limitation “the digitized photograph being obtained through the use of a camera” (Final Act. 5–6) and cited to the Appeal 2019-005508 Application 14/546,091 7 camera subsystem 320 of Vendrow for teaching the limitation “use of a camera of the mobile user device” (id. at 6). The rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Asure, Cross, and Vendrow, and Appellant cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Asure, Cross, and Vendrow would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation reciting “the digitized photograph being obtained through the use of a camera of the mobile user device.” Last, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 5–6) that the combination of Asure, Cross, and Vendrow would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation reciting “the digitized signature being obtained by the individual entering the signature via a user interface window presented on a screen of the mobile user device.” Vendrow further explains that “on a mobile device [510] that has a touch-screen input device, a user can create a signature image by writing on the touch-screen with a stylus or with a finger” and “[a] signature image is generated by tracing the movement of the stylus or the user’s finger on the touch screen interface of the mobile device.” (¶ 66.) Because Vendrow explains that mobile device 510 includes touch-screen input device, such that a user can create a signature, Vendrow teaches the limitation “the digitized signature being obtained by the individual entering the signature via a user interface window presented on a screen of the mobile user device.” Appellant argues that Appeal 2019-005508 Application 14/546,091 8 nowhere within Vendrow, taken alone or in combination, is there any disclosure or suggestion of the digitized signature being obtained by the individual entering the signature via a user interface window presented on a screen of the mobile user device (i.e., the mobile user device that is producing the digital identifier and for use on the mobile user device). (Appeal Br. 6.) However, other than providing a conclusory statement that Vendrow does not teach the limitation “the digitized photograph being obtained through the use of a camera of the mobile user device,” Appellant has not provided any persuasive arguments or evidence as to why the Examiner’s findings with respect to that mobile device 510, which includes a touch-screen input device, are erroneous. Moreover, the Examiner cited to Asure, rather than Vendrow for teaching the limitation “digital identifier.” (Ans. 4.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Asure, Cross, and Vendrow would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation reciting “the digitized photograph being obtained through the use of a camera of the mobile user device.” Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2–6 depend from claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claims 7 and 13 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 13, as well as dependent claims 8– 12 and 14–20 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Appeal 2019-005508 Application 14/546,091 9 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. DECISION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 103 Asure, Cross, Vendrow 1–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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