Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 17, 2021

2020005445 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 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.
15/362,060 11/28/2016 Grigori Zaitsev RPS920160051USNP(710.530) 9866
58127 7590 11/17/2021
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
AYALA, KEVIN ALEXIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2496
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2021 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 GRIGORI ZAITSEV, IGOR STOLBIKOV, TIMOTHY
WINTHROP KINGSBURY, and ROD D. WALTERMANN
____________________

Appeal 2020-005445
Application 15/362,0601
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHN A. EVANS, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–10, 12–20, and 22, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention is a method and device for authentication
session management. The method includes performing an initial

1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Lenovo (Singapore) PTE.
LTD. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 11 and 21 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2020-005445
Application 15/362,060

2
authentication of a user using a first mechanism having a first security.
Subsequently, the method steps include entering a continuous authentication
session, which comprises detecting presence of the user by a second
mechanism having a second security that is lower than the first security, and
maintaining the continuous authentication session in response to detecting
the presence of the user. A frequency of re-authentication is based on a
quality of the second data provided by the second mechanism. See Abstract,
Specification ¶¶ 28–31.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising:
performing, at an electronic device, an initial authentication
of a user using a first mechanism, wherein the first mechanism
comprises an authentication mechanism having a first security
and providing data for authentication;
entering, using a processor, a continuous authentication
session responsive to a successful result of the initial
authentication of the user;
thereafter detecting, during the continuous authentication
session, presence of the user by a second mechanism providing
second data different than the data provided by the first
mechanism, wherein the second mechanism comprises a
mechanism having a second security that is lower than the first
security and requiring less processing power than the first
mechanism, and wherein data received by the second mechanism
is insufficient to authenticate and identify the user; and
maintaining, using the processor, the continuous
authentication session in response to detecting the presence of
the user, wherein the maintaining comprises re-authenticating
the user periodically utilizing an authentication mechanism
having a higher security than the second mechanism, wherein a
frequency of re-authentication is based upon a quality of the
second data provided by the second mechanism, wherein the
Appeal 2020-005445
Application 15/362,060

3
quality of the second data is based upon an ability of the data to
be used to identify a specific user.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Parker et al. (“Parker”) US 6,810,480 B1 Oct. 26, 2004
Sheller et al. (“Sheller”) US 2014/0282868 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
Smith et al. (“Smith”) US 2014/0282945 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
Krishnaiah US 2016/0359827 A1 Dec. 8, 2016
Turgeman US 2017/0032114 A1 Feb. 2, 2017

Claims 1–5, 7, 9, 10, 12–16, 18, 20, and 223 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Turgeman, and Sheller.
Claims 6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Smith, Turgeman, Sheller, and Krishnaiah.
Claims 8 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Smith, Turgeman, Sheller, and Parker.4

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed April 13, 2020), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July
17, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 20, 2020) for
their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does the combination of Smith, Turgeman, and Sheller teach or
suggest detecting presence of the user by a second mechanism providing

3 The Final Action refers to claims “1-5, 7, 9-16, 18, and 20-22” standing
rejected over Smith, Turgeman, and Sheller, but also acknowledges that
claims 11 and 21 were previously cancelled. Final Act. 2, 5.
4 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the previous rejection of claims 1,
12, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-005445
Application 15/362,060

4
second data different from the data provided by the first mechanism, and
having a second security lower than the first security?
2. Did the Examiner provide a reason to combine Smith, Turgeman,
and Sheller having a rational underpinning?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–5, 7, 9, 10, 12–16, 18, 20, and 22
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, performing an initial
authentication of a user using a first authentication mechanism having a first
security; responsive to a successful result of initial authentication, entering a
continuous authentication session; detecting, during the continuous
authentication session, presence of the user by a second mechanism, the
second mechanism having a second security that is lower than the first
security, and wherein data received by the second mechanism is insufficient
to authenticate and identify the user. Independent claims 12 and 22 recite
analogous limitations.
Appellant argues the combined teachings of Smith, Turgeman, and
Sheller fail to teach or suggest all the claim limitations. Appeal Br. 18.
Appellant contends that, contrary to the requirements of the claim, Smith’s
second authentication mechanism is the same or similar authentication
mechanism used to first authenticate the user. Appeal Br. 19, citing Smith
¶¶ 75, 76.
We do not agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred. The
Examiner, in finding that Smith teaches detecting presence of the user by a
second mechanism, cites to Smith’s teaching concerning the continuous
authentication confidence module (CACM) that it “may be further
configured to cause authentication device 102 to gather presence evidence,
Appeal 2020-005445
Application 15/362,060

5
e.g., using sensors 212 or other components.” Final Act. 2, citing Smith ¶ 78.
Smith teaches that such presence evidence “includes evidence of the
presence of a human (‘human presence evidence’) as well as evidence of the
presence of a specific human.” Smith ¶ 78. “The operations of the CACM
may be initiated in response to an initial biometric authentication of a
human.” Smith ¶ 79. “When the confidence level is above the first threshold
level, the CACM may be configured to use low power sensors to obtain
presence evidence and locally available contextual data to update the
confidence level.” Smith ¶ 81. Conversely, “[i]f the confidence level
decreases below the first threshold . . . the CACM may elect to us[e] higher
power sensors (e.g., a camera, facial recognition, etc.) to obtain presence
evidence.” Id. From these teachings, we determine that Smith teaches a
second mechanism (for authentication), providing second data different than
the data provided by the first mechanism, as the claims require.
Appellant also contends that the Examiner’s combination of Smith,
Turgeman, and Sheller is supported only by a conclusory motivation
statement – “for the purpose of conserving battery consumption or power
consumption and to authenticate user, this improves security by ensuring
that the authorized user engages in the activity.” Appeal Br. 15, citing Final
Act. 6. Appellant argues that neither Smith nor Turgeman supports this
conclusion, and that the Examiner has provided no evidentiary support for
the statement. Appeal Br. 16–17.
Appellant’s motivation argument is not persuasive. The Examiner
identified a teaching in Turgeman directed to a mechanism having a second
security less than the first security. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that the
second mechanism requires less processing power than the first mechanism.
Appeal 2020-005445
Application 15/362,060

6
Id., citing Turgeman ¶¶ 76, 146, 149. The Examiner cites to teaching in
Turgeman suggesting battery consumption or power consumption savings.
Ans. 4, citing Turgeman ¶ 146. We determine that the Examiner has
articulated reasoning to combine Smith with Turgeman and Sheller having a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–5, 7,
9, 10, 12–16, 18, 20, and 22 under § 103 as being unpatentable over Smith,
Turgeman, and Sheller. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Claims 6, 8, 17, and 19
Claims 6 and 8 depend from independent claim 1. Claims 17 and 19
depend from independent claim 12. We sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 12, as discussed supra. Appellant does not present separate
argument for the patentability of these dependent claims.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 6 and 17
over Smith, Turgeman, Sheller, and Krishnaiah, and we sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 8 and 19 over Smith, Turgeman,
Sheller, and Parker, for the same reasons given supra with respect to
independent claims 1 and 12.
CONCLUSION
1. The combination of Smith, Turgeman, and Sheller suggests
detecting presence of the user by a second mechanism providing second data
different from the data provided by the first mechanism, and having a second
security lower than the first security.
2. The Examiner articulated reasoning to combine Smith and
Turgeman having a rational underpinning.
Appeal 2020-005445
Application 15/362,060

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/
Basis 
Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7, 9, 10,
12–16, 18,
20, 22
103 Smith, Turgeman,
Sheller
1–5, 7, 9,
10, 12–16,
18, 20, 22

6, 17 103 Smith, Turgeman,
Sheller,
Krishnaiah
6, 17
8, 19 103 Smith, Turgeman,
Sheller, Parker
8, 19
Overall
Outcome

1–10, 12–
20, 22

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10, 12–20, and 22 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