(Total Views: 457)
Posted On: 12/10/2018 9:27:26 AM
Post# of 82686
Why we will see SFOR change forever at any time...
United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision showing that SFOR patents are Rock solid:
In particular, the ’698 patent discloses a multi-channel, out-of-band security system for granting or denying access to a host computer in response to a user’s access request. In the first authentication factor, the user seeking access to the host computer presents user identification and password data over an access channel. This information is intercepted and transmitted to a security computer, which verifies the information. Next, in the second authentication factor, the security computer communicates with the user through a peripheral device, such as a telephone, within a separate authentication channel. The security computer authenticates the user via a password entered on the telephone keypad and may further authenticate the user using a biometric system, which controls access based on “characteristics of the human body,” such as fingerprints or voice. Upon obtaining a match, the security computer instructs the host computer to grant access.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, for the reasons given, we determine that the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the challenged claims of the ’698 patent, claims 1–17, 19–24, 53, and 54, are unpatentable. Thus, we do not institute inter partes review of any of the challenged claims on any of the asserted grounds. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted as to any claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698
United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision showing that SFOR patents are Rock solid:
In particular, the ’698 patent discloses a multi-channel, out-of-band security system for granting or denying access to a host computer in response to a user’s access request. In the first authentication factor, the user seeking access to the host computer presents user identification and password data over an access channel. This information is intercepted and transmitted to a security computer, which verifies the information. Next, in the second authentication factor, the security computer communicates with the user through a peripheral device, such as a telephone, within a separate authentication channel. The security computer authenticates the user via a password entered on the telephone keypad and may further authenticate the user using a biometric system, which controls access based on “characteristics of the human body,” such as fingerprints or voice. Upon obtaining a match, the security computer instructs the host computer to grant access.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, for the reasons given, we determine that the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the challenged claims of the ’698 patent, claims 1–17, 19–24, 53, and 54, are unpatentable. Thus, we do not institute inter partes review of any of the challenged claims on any of the asserted grounds. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted as to any claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698
(11)
(0)
