Ex Parte BehjatDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 29, 201713416397 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/416,397 03/09/2012 Abdolreza Behjat 955-002 8969 34845 7590 12/01/2017 AnHersinn frorerki T T P EXAMINER 2 Dundee Park Dr. LY, TOAN C Suite 301A Andover, MA 01810 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2887 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/01/2017 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): handerson @ andersongorecki. com jgorecki @ smmalaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ABDOLREZA BEHJAT1 Appeal 2017-000600 Application 13/416,397 Technology Center 2800 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, GEORGE C. BEST, and CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Abdolreza Behjat Appeal 2017-000600 Application 13/416,397 Appellant’s request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 58 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis): 58. A method comprising: enabling a first device (a) to receive information from a second device that is not connected to a communication network, the information carrying data that identifies one or more items being sold from the second device to the user of the first device, (b) to cause payment for the one or more items to be authorized at a remote location, and (c) to send to the second device information confirming the payment. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Hui US 2011/0202425 A1 Aug. 18, 2011 Duff US 2012/0187187 A1 Jul. 26,2012 Rosenberg US 2011/0276511 A1 Nov. 102011 THE REJECTION2 Claims 58—84 and 112—121 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hui in view of Duff, and further in view of Rosenberg. 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, rejection. Ans. 2. 2 Appeal 2017-000600 Application 13/416,397 ANALYSIS Method claim 58 recites that a first device receives information from a second device (that is not connected to a network) wherein the information received is data that identifies one or more items being sold from the second device (method claim 112 is similar in this regard). The Examiner views Hui’s barcode as being the claimed second device. Non-final Office Action, 5, Ans. 2—3. However, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument in the record that the barcode is not a second device. Appeal Br. 22. Reply Br. 6. Appellant’s Specification indicates that the pair of devices require “functions or processes to be performed . . . .” Spec. 1147. A barcode does not have functioning capability. We thus agree with Appellant’s stated position in the record that the applied art does not suggest this aspect of the claims. We thus reverse the rejection. DECISION The rejection is reversed. ORDER REVERSED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation