Authenticor Identity Protection Services Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 26, 2021

2021001451 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 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.
15/060,643 03/04/2016 Gregory Howard Wolfond 24198-P44211US01 2691
1059 7590 10/26/2021
BERESKIN & PARR LLP/S.E.N.C.R.L., s.r.l.
40 KING STREET WEST
40TH FLOOR
TORONTO, ONTARIO M5H 3Y2
CANADA
EXAMINER
WHITAKER, ANDREW B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2021 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):
ipprocessingcentre@bereskinparr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GREGORY HOWARD WOLFOND,
JAIME SHAPIRO, PATRICK HANS ENGEL,
and PIERRE ANTOINE ROBERGE
__________________

Appeal 2021-001451
Application 15/060,643
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–18. Appeal Br. 26. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Authenticor Identity Protection Services Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-001451
Application 15/060,643
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The land title registry system verifies that persons trying to modify the
title of a property are authorized to do so by the property titleholder. Spec.
¶¶ 18–26. Before a modification can be made to a property’s title, financial
intermediary server 12 verifies that the property title holder has authorized a
change in title to the property and the person doing so is a trusted authority
who is authorized by the titleholder in an authorization record to change the
property’s title. See Spec. ¶¶ 29–35. An “authorization record” indicates
whether a specific trusted authority can change title to a property. Id. ¶ 36.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, and 11 are independent. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for enhancing the security of an electronic land
title registry system, the system comprising a registry server
hosting a registry database accessible by a registry user, and an
authorization server hosting an authorization database, the
method comprising:
the registry server authenticating the registry user to
access a title record in the registry database;
the registry server receiving a title record modification
request associated with the registry user, the title record
modification request corresponding to the title record in the
registry database;
the registry server transmitting a title record query to the
authorization server for the title record;
the authorization server querying the authorization
database based on the title record query to determine whether
an authorization record, corresponding to the title record, has
been created in the authorization database by a record owner
user;
when the authorization record does not exist, the
authorization server notifying the registry server that the title
record can be modified and, otherwise:
the authorization server requesting an authorization
service key, and the registry server transmitting the
authorization service key to the authorization server;
Appeal 2021-001451
Application 15/060,643
3
the authorization server verifying the authorization
service key against a previously generated authorization service
key stored at the authorization server;
the authorization server notifying the registry server
when the authorization service key is verified to be valid;
the authorization server receiving from the registry server
an indication of the registry user;
the authorization server verifying that the authorization
service key corresponds to the registry user;
the authorization server determining, from the
authorization record in the authorization database, that the
registry user is authorized to modify the title record; and
in response to determining that the registry user is
authorized to modify the title record, the authorization server
notifying the registry server that the title record can be modified
and, otherwise, notifying the registry server that the title record
is not to be modified; and
in response to notification from the authorization server
that the record can be modified, the registry server modifying
the record in the registry database in accordance with the record
modification request.
Appeal Br. 27–28 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fries2 and Raveis, Jr. (“Raveis”).3
Claims 2, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fries, Raveis, and Barnes.4
Claims 3, 6, 8, 10, and 13–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fries, Raveis, and Campagna.5

2 US 2003/0036922 A1, published February 20, 2003.
3 US 2001/0047282 A1, published November 29, 2001.
4 US 2006/0184452 A1, published August 17, 2006.
5 US 2006/0064375 A1, published March 23, 2006.
Appeal 2021-001451
Application 15/060,643
4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, and 11 Rejected over Fries and Raveis
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Fries teaches a method for
enhancing system security comprising a registry hosting a registry database
accessible by a user and an authorization hosting a database accessible by a
record owner where the registry receives a title record modification request
associated with the registry user, the title record modification request
corresponds to the title record in the registry database (Fries ¶¶ 9–11), the
registry transmits a title record query to the authorization for the title record
(and maintains databases of real estate parcel data and rules for examining
title to real estate parcels, Fries ¶¶ 9–11, 30), the authorization queries the
authorization database based on the title record query to determine whether
an authorization record corresponding to the title record was created in the
authorization database by a record owner user (Fries ¶¶ 29, 30, 32, 36), and
when the authorization record does not exist, the authorization server
notifies the registry server that the title record can be modified (Fries ¶ 42),
the authorization determines from the authorization record in the database
that the registry user is authorized to modify the title record (Fries ¶¶ 29, 30,
32, 36), in response to determining the registry user is authorized to modify
the title record, the authorization notifies the registry server that the title
record can be modified (Fries ¶¶ 29, 30, 32, 36), and in response to such
notification from the authorization, the registry modifies the record in the
registry database per the record modification request (Fries ¶ 32). Final Act.
6–7. The Examiner finds that Fries lacks a registry server and authentication
server where the registry server authenticates the registry user to access a
title record in the registry database. Id. at 7. The Examiner treats initiating a
title examination in Fries as “transmitting a title record query.” Ans. 4.
Appeal 2021-001451
Application 15/060,643
5
The Examiner cites Raveis to teach a registry server authenticating the
registry user to access a title record in the registry database (Raveis ¶¶ 68,
101–105), an authorization server (that tokenizes user access, Raveis ¶¶ 46–
59), the authorization server requesting the authorization service key from
the registry, verifying the authorization service key against a previously
generated key, and notifying the registry server when the key is verified to
be valid (Raveis ¶¶ 46–59). Final Act. 8.
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan to use Raveis’ method of managing real estate transactions in Fries’
method of examining real estate parcels to “allow[] users to more securely
perform real-estate transactions.” Id. at 8–9.
Appellant argues that neither Fries nor Raveis teaches a registry server
or an authorization server. Appeal Br. 18, 23–24. Appellant also argues that
even if Raveis’ teaching of communications between two servers is added to
Fries, the resulting combination does not teach a registry server transmitting
a title record query to an authorization server for the title record or that the
authorization server notifies the registry server that the title record can be
modified as claimed. Id.; Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner responds:
Here, as noted previously, Raveis is relied upon to teach the
remote server aspects, which all are capable of maintaining the
databases and processes as described in both Fries and Raveis.
Here, Raveis is teaching the use of an “authentication server” in
Fries’ process whereby Fries “A computer processor receives
and implements instructions to apply 14 one or more of the
rules to the title information to generate a title examination
result for the parcel, (Fries ¶30).”
Ans. 4.

Appeal 2021-001451
Application 15/060,643
6
Even if Fries’ computer system is considered to be a registry, adding
Raveis’ remote authorization server does not result in Fries’ registry server
transmitting a title record query to an authorization server because Fries’
computer examines titles without transmitting a title record query to another
computer. Fries ¶¶ 9–11, 20–30, 43. Thus, a user of Fries’ system submits a
title record query to Fries’ computer, which performs the title examination
without the need to communicate the title record query to another computer.
Fries stores title information and title examination rules in databases
in a computer memory. Fries ¶ 30; see Ans. 4 (citing Fries ¶ 30). Even if
we treat a title examination request of Fries as a “title record query,” Fries
does not transmit this title examination query to another computer. Instead,
Fries performs the title examination on a single computer by using the title
information and examination rules stored in the databases of the computer’s
memory without communicating the title record query to another server. See
Fries ¶¶ 9–11, 20–30. The computer may be a stand-alone system that can
communicate, a computer connected to a network to communicate, a hand-
held computing device, or any other form of computing device capable of
carrying out equivalent operations. Id. ¶ 43. The communication capability
is used to deliver title examination reports to third party insurers, lenders, or
loan applicants. It is not used to transmit a title record query to another
server that determines whether an authorization record exists. See id. ¶ 42.
The Examiner cites Raveis to teach a remote server to maintain the
databases and processes of Fries such as by using Raveis’ “authentication
server” in Fries’ process. Ans. 4; see Final Act. 8. Raveis teaches a system
that manages real estate transactions over a network and applies different
levels of security via authentication tokens to people accessing the system.
Raveis ¶¶ 2, 13, 46–56; see Final Act. 8.
Appeal 2021-001451
Application 15/060,643
7
Even if Raveis’ authentication server is added to Fries’ computer to
“allow[] users to more securely perform real-estate transactions” as the
Examiner proposes (Final Act. 8–9), the combination still does not teach or
suggest that Fries’ computer, which the Examiner treats as a registry server,
would transmit a title record query to Raveis’ authentication server. Raveis’
authentication server controls user access to a computer. Raveis ¶¶ 46–59.
Providing such access control for Fries’ “registry” computer still does not
result in the computer of Fries transmitting a title record query to another
authorization server as claimed. It simply authenticates users who want to
access Fries’ registry. Raveis ¶¶ 46–59; Final Act. 8 (citing Raveis ¶¶ 46–59
as teaching an authorization server that uses tokenization for user access on
a server side). The title record query is still performed on Fries’ computer.
In contrast, the claimed authorization server reviews authorization records of
trusted authorities who can modify a property’s title. Spec. ¶¶ 29–35.
Nor it is clear that Fries and Raveis teach “when the authorization
record does not exist, the authorization server notif[ies] the registry server
that the title record can be modified.” See Appeal Br. 27–32 (Claims App.);
Final Act. 6. This feature allows property title holders who do not register
with the system, and thus do not create an authorization record of the trusted
authorities who are authorized to change title to their properties, to modify
their property records under normal procedures. See Spec. ¶ 81.
If Raveis’ authentication process is used in Fries to limit access only
to users with authorization service keys, the lack of an authorization record
would prevent users from accessing Fries’ registry to search titles without
being authorized to do so by presenting a valid authorization service key.
See Raveis ¶¶ 46–59; Final Act. 8.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 9, and 11.
Appeal 2021-001451
Application 15/060,643
8
Claims 2, 5, and 12 Rejected over Fries, Raveis, and Barnes
The Examiner’s reliance on Barnes to teach features of claims 2, 5,
and 12 does not cure the deficiencies of Fries and Raveis as to claims 1, 4,
and 11 from which these claims depend respectively. See Final Act. 9.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims.
Claims 3, 6, 8, 10, and 13–18 Rejected over Fries, Raveis, and Campagna
The Examiner’s reliance on Campagna to teach features of claims 3,
6, 8, 10, and 13–18 does not cure the deficiencies of Fries and Raveis as to
claims 1, 4, 7, 9, and 11, from which these claims depend respectively. See
Final Act. 10–11. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 7, 9, 11 103(a) Fries, Raveis 1, 4, 7, 9, 11
2, 5, 12 103(a) Fries, Raveis,
Barnes
2, 5, 12
3, 6, 8, 10,
13–18
103(a) Fries, Raveis,
Campagna
3, 6, 8, 10,
13–18
Overall
Outcome
1–18
REVERSED