ARK Ideaz, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2021

2020004181 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 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.
16/106,206 08/21/2018 Randy FELDMAN JL1173.006 4836
14207 7590 04/02/2021
The Juhasz Law Firm, P.C.
10777 Westheimer, Suite 1100
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
GIRMA, FEKADESELASS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2021 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):
pjuhasz@patenthorizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RANDY FELDMAN
Appeal 2020-004181
Application 16/106,206
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–49. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

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 Ark Ideaz, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-004181
Application 16/106,206
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “[a]uthentication systems and methods.”
Spec., Title. Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
21. A system for validating the authenticity of an
object, the system comprising:
a first computing device, communicatively coupled to a
network, the first computing device configured to:
receive a first message over the network from a
second computing device, the first message containing
first data based on a sensed characteristic of the object;
match the first data against a database
communicatively coupled to the first computing device to
retrieve authentication information from the database;
determine a likelihood of authenticity of the object,
based, at least in part, on the authentication information;
update the database based on information in the
first data and on the likelihood of authenticity; and
send a second message over the network to the
second computing device, the second message including
second data indicative of the likelihood of authenticity.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Royyuru US 2009/0106134 A1 Apr. 23, 2009
Villa-Real US 2014/0162598 A1 June 12, 2014

Appeal 2020-004181
Application 16/106,206
3
REJECTIONS2
Claims 21–24, 32–38, and 46–48 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C
§ 103 as obvious over Villa-Real. Final Act. 4–16.
Claims 25–31, 39–45, and 49 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C
§ 103 as obvious over Villa-Real and Royyuru. Final Act. 16–23.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 21–24, 32–38, and 46–48 over
Villa-Real
The Examiner finds Villa-Real teaches all limitations of claim 21. See
Final Act. 4–8; see also Ans. 3–21. In particular, the Examiner finds
Villa-Real teaches “match the first data against a database communicatively
coupled to the first computing device to retrieve authentication information
from the database” (claim 21). See Final Act. 6 (citing Villa-Real ¶ 322). In
particular, the Examiner finds Villa-Real teaches “determine a likelihood of
authenticity of the object, based, at least in part, on the authentication
information” (claim 21). See Final Act. 6–7 (citing Villa-Real ¶ 322). In
particular, the Examiner finds Villa-Real teaches “update the database based
on information in the first data and on the likelihood of authenticity” (claim
21). See Final Act. 7 (citing Villa-Real ¶ 75).
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
i. Villa-Real does not teach “match the first data against a
database communicatively coupled to the first computing device to retrieve
authentication information from the database” (claim 21). See Appeal Br. 8–

2 A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 21–
24, 32–38, and 46–48 has been withdrawn in response to the filing of a
Terminal Disclaimer. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-004181
Application 16/106,206
4
12 (“All that the cited text indicates is that some data on a transaction with
information authenticating the identity of a user of a bank account or credit
card is routed to the customer’s bank account or to the credit card issuing
bank.”); see also Reply Br. 4–8.
ii. Villa-Real does not teach “determine a likelihood of
authenticity of the object, based, at least in part, on the authentication
information” (claim 21). See Appeal Br. 12–14 ([T]he determination that is
being made is whether to approve or decline the transaction—not the
likelihood of authenticity of an object.”); see also Reply Br. 9–11.
iii. Villa-Real does not teach “update the database based on
information in the first data and on the likelihood of authenticity” (claim 21).
See Appeal Br. 14–16 (“[T]he cited section of Villa-Real has absolutely
nothing at all to do with updating a database based on information in the first
data and on the likelihood of authenticity.”); see also Reply Br. 11–12.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Appellant’s arguments raise the following issues: (1) does Villa-Real
teach “match the first data against a database communicatively coupled to
the first computing device to retrieve authentication information from the
database” (claim 21); (2) does Villa-Real teach “determine a likelihood of
authenticity of the object, based, at least in part, on the authentication
information” (claim 21); and (3) does Villa-Real teach “update the database
based on information in the first data and on the likelihood of authenticity”
(claim 21)?
Appeal 2020-004181
Application 16/106,206
5
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Additionally, “[t]hough understanding the claim
language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written
description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not
a part of the claim.” See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358
F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In reaching our decision, we focus on the
actual language of the claim, and decline to import limitations from the
Specification.
We also focus on the disclosures in Villa-Real. We emphasize that in
considering the disclosure of a reference, “it is proper to take into account
not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
Villa-Real discloses the following:
Step B: The authorized customer or authorized user, then,
wirelessly sends or submits the particular credit/debit card
transaction with relevant data/information for proper
identification, authentication, validation and pre-authorization,
to the Customer’s Credit Card Processing Means 384, through
his/her respective registered CCIRAF/AITD, via wireless and
wired and optical (if applicable) connections.

Step C: The Customer’s Credit Card Processing Means 384
through its correctly linked network routes the transaction with
relevant proper identification, authentication, validation and
pre-authorization data/information to the specific Customer’s
Bank Account 380 or Credit Card Issuing Bank.

Appeal 2020-004181
Application 16/106,206
6
Step D: The Customer’s Bank account 380 or Credit Card
Issuing Bank approves or declines the transaction based on the
authorized customer’s or authorized user’s available funds with
relevant identified, validated, authenticated and pre-authorized
information data, and, then passes the transaction results back
to the Customer’s Credit Card Processing Means 384. The
specific transaction processed as such is recorded into the
buffer memory of the Customer’s Bank Account’s database,
and the specific transaction amount is placed on hold in the
authorized customer’s or authorized user’s specific bank
account’s buffer, until the whole specific transaction is
completed.
Villa-Real ¶ 322.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (i), this argument is unpersuasive of
reversible Examiner error. Villa-Real’s Customer’s Bank Account 380
(Villa-Real, Fig. 14) reasonably describes the “first computing device”
(claim 21). Villa-Real teaches “match the first data against a database
communicatively coupled to the first computing device to retrieve
authentication information from the database” (claim 21) because
Villa-Real’s Customer’s Bank Account 380 receives “the transaction with
relevant proper identification, authentication, validation and pre-
authorization data/information” and “approves or declines the transaction
based on the authorized customer’s or authorized user’s available funds with
relevant identified, validated, authenticated and pre-authorized information
data.” Villa-Real ¶ 322. A skilled artisan would have understood Customer’s
Bank Account 380 must match the received information with the user’s bank
account in order to continue with the transaction, and such matching
involves retrieving the user’s bank account information (“authentication
information”) from a database of Customer’s Bank Account 380. See Preda,
401 F.2d at 826; see also Villa-Real ¶ 322. The retrieved user’s bank
Appeal 2020-004181
Application 16/106,206
7
account information is “authentication information” because this information
may be compared to information from the swiped credit/debit card to prove
the authenticity of the swiped credit/debit card. See Villa-Real ¶ 322.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (ii), this argument is unpersuasive of
reversible Examiner error. Villa-Real teaches “determine a likelihood of
authenticity of the object, based, at least in part, on the authentication
information” (claim 21) because the transaction is approved or declined
based on the retrieved user’s bank account information. See Villa-Real
¶ 322. A skilled artisan would have understood that Customer’s Bank
Account 380 compares the retrieved user’s bank account information
(“authentication information”) to the swiped credit/debit card information to
prove the authenticity of the swiped credit/debit card, and approval of the
transaction means the swiped credit/debit card was determined to have a
reasonable likelihood of being authentic. See Preda, 401 F.2d at 826; see
also Villa-Real ¶ 322.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (iii), this argument is unpersuasive
of reversible Examiner error. Villa-Real teaches “update the database based
on information in the first data and on the likelihood of authenticity” (claim
21) because, in Villa-Real, “[t]he specific transaction processed as such is
recorded into the buffer memory of the Customer’s Bank Account’s
database, and the specific transaction amount is placed on hold in the
authorized customer’s or authorized user’s specific bank account’s buffer,
until the whole specific transaction is completed.” Villa-Real ¶ 322
(emphasis added). A skilled artisan would have understood that the
transaction is proceeding with processing because the swiped credit/debit
Appeal 2020-004181
Application 16/106,206
8
card was determined to have a reasonable likelihood of being authentic. See
Preda, 401 F.2d at 826; see also Villa-Real ¶ 322.
In short, the broad claim language does not preclude finding
Villa-Real teaches (1) “match the first data against a database
communicatively coupled to the first computing device to retrieve
authentication information from the database” (claim 21); (2) “determine a
likelihood of authenticity of the object, based, at least in part, on the
authentication information” (claim 21); and (3) “update the database based
on information in the first data and on the likelihood of authenticity” (claim
21). See Villa-Real ¶ 322.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22, 32–36, and 46–
48, which are not separately argued with particularity. See Appeal Br. 8–21;
see also Reply Br. 1–14.
Claim 23 further recites “wherein the first computing device is
configured to calculate the authentication value based, at least in part, on
applying at least one of a score or a weight to the sensed characteristic of the
object.”
The Examiner finds Villa-Real teaches the further recited subject
matter of claim 23. Final Act. 9 (citing Villa-Real ¶ 338) (“The TIN
[(Transaction Identification Number)], along with the other details of the
particular transaction are displayed on the interactive LCD display
window.”); see also Ans. 23 (citing Villa-Real ¶ 383) (“When an inputted
password or pass code and/or the finger biometrics data (score) matches with
stored information, there is then a confirmation of validity for the use of the
present inventive device.”).
Appeal 2020-004181
Application 16/106,206
9
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
[T]he cited section of Villa-Real is concerned with including a
random Transaction Identification Number (TIN) with other
transaction details. There is nothing that indicates that any
calculation of an authentication value is taking place, much less
a calculation in which a score or weight is applied to a sensed
characteristic of an object.
Appeal Br. 17. “If the password, passcode, or biometric data do not validate
the user’s identity for use of the Villa-Real Device, then there is not even a
reading of any ‘sensed characteristic’ related to the card.” Reply Br. 13.
Appellant’s arguments raise the following issue: does Villa-Real teach
the further recited subject matter of claim 23?
The Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning
explaining how Villa-Real’s Transaction Identification Number (TIN) and
other transaction details teach or suggest “calculat[ing] the authentication
value based, at least in part, on applying at least one of a score or a weight to
the sensed characteristic of the object” (claim 23). We also do not agree with
the Examiner in finding Villa-Real’s password, passcode, and biometric data
teach or suggest “calculat[ing] the authentication value based, at least in
part, on applying at least one of a score or a weight to the sensed
characteristic of the object” (claim 23).
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24, which
depends from claim 23.
Claim 37 further recites “wherein calculating the authentication value
comprises applying at least one of a score or a weight to the sensed
characteristic of the object.”
Appeal 2020-004181
Application 16/106,206
10
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 for
the same reasons discussed above for claim 23.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 38, which
depends from claim 37

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 25–31, 39–45, and 49 over Villa-Real
and Royyuru
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25–28, 30, 31, 39–42,
45, and 49, which are not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 8–21; see also
Reply Br. 1–14.
Claim 29 further recites “wherein the first message further includes
supply chain data on a stage in a supply chain for the object, and wherein the
first computing device is configured to update the database by adding the
supply chain data to the history of the object.”
The Examiner finds Villa-Real teaches the further recited subject
matter of claim 29. Final Act. 18–19 (citing Villa-Real ¶¶ 76, 93); see also
Ans. 26–27 (citing Villa-Real ¶¶ 76, 93).
Appellant presents the following principal argument:
It is unclear how the disclosure that the device of
Villa-Real can be used to complete transactions, such as car and
hotel reservations, or that it can securely store and transmit
personal information, such as medical records or video
recordings of family members relates at all to supply chain
information. Though both arguably store and transmit
“information,” that is where the similarity ends. The kinds of
uses that are recited in Villa-Real are simply not related to
supply chain data.
Appeal Br. 20–21; see also Reply Br. 13.
Appeal 2020-004181
Application 16/106,206
11
Appellant’s argument raises the following issue: does Villa-Real teach
the further recited subject matter of claim 29?
The Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning
explaining how Villa-Real’s device teaches or suggests “the first message
further includes supply chain data on a stage in a supply chain for the object,
and wherein the first computing device is configured to update the database
by adding the supply chain data to the history of the object” (claim 29).
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29.
Claim 43 further recites “wherein updating the database comprises
adding supply chain data on a stage in a supply chain for the object to a
history of the object stored in the database.”
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 43 for
the same reasons discussed above for claim 29.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 44, which
depends from claim 43.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21, 22, 25–28, 30–36, 39–
42, and 45–49 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 23, 24, 29, 37, 38, 43, and
44 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–24, 32–
38, 46–48
103(a) Villa-Real 21, 22, 32–
36, 46–48
23, 24, 37,
38
Appeal 2020-004181
Application 16/106,206
12
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
25–31, 39–
45, 49
103(a) Villa-Real,
Royyuru
25–28, 30,
31, 39–42,
45, 49
29, 43, 44
Overall
Outcome
21, 22, 25–
28, 30–36,
39–42, 45–
49
23, 24, 29,
37, 38, 43,
44

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART