Ex Parte Chang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 30, 2010

11554610 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 2010)

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.
11/554,610 10/31/2006 Chong-Yie Chang 054788/361998 5691
826 7590 12/01/2010
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
GREGG, MARY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHONG-YIE CHANG
____________

Appeal 2010-001947
Application 11/554,610
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU R.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2010-001947
Application 11/554,610
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
final rejection of claims 1-34 which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a system and method
for facilitating a transaction over a communication network using a
communication device. (Spec. [0005]). Claim 1, reproduced below with the
numbering in brackets added, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.

1. A system to facilitate a transaction over a communication
network, the system comprising a transaction platform
[1] to store at least one card identification number,
[2] to provide a message including at least one token associated
with the at least one card identification number to a communication
device to request a selection of the at least one token,
[3] and to receive transaction information regarding a
transaction made at a business unit from the communication device.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Talker US 6,954,740 B2 Oct. 11, 2005
Litle US 2006/0020542 A1 Jan. 26, 2006
Appeal 2010-001947
Application 11/554,610
3
Glanz US 2007/0051794 A1 Mar. 8, 2007

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-17, 19-20, 27-29, 31, and 33-34 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Talker.
2. Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Talker and Official Notice.
3. Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Talker and Glanz.
4. Claims 21-26, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Talker and Litle.

THE ISSUES
With regards to the rejection of claim 1, the issue turns on whether
Talker discloses the argued elements of claim limitations [2] and [3]. The
rejection of the remaining claims turns on a similar issue.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported
at least by a preponderance of the evidence:2
FF1. Talker is directed to an action verification system (Title) for e-
commerce authorization and verification using multiple key/pin storage and
includes a transaction message (Abstract). The invention is directed to

2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2010-001947
Application 11/554,610
4
where an Action Initiating Party (e.g. vendors or bank) wants to verify the
validity of a credit card signature using stored PINs/KEYs. (Col. 2:14-21).
FF2. Talker describes the Action Initiating Party 12 as including a company
or vendor trying to verify an action. Talker describes the Entity as including
an individual or company which authorizes an action by providing a
PIN/KEY. Talker discloses the Verification Authority 16 as providing
verification using stored PINs/KEYS. (Col. 4:11-47).
FF3. Talker, in Fig. 1, discloses the Entity 14 providing a PIN to an input
means 18 (modem, fax, keyboard, telephone) of an action initiating party 12
which provides the verification request to the verification authority system
(16).
FF4. Litle had disclosed a system for processing financial transactions
(Title). Litle at [0062] discloses that that the network enables the purchase
of goods from a merchant using the PSID (payment system identifier)
associated with a member identity token that is related to the credit card.
FF5. Glanz has disclosed a credit card proxy system (Title).

ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
Talker fails to disclose claim limitations [2] and [3] (Br. 7-9, Reply Br. 2-4).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is
proper and that Talker discloses the argued claimed limitations (Ans. 23-26).
We agree with the Examiner. Claim limitations [2] and [3] require the
transaction platform:
[2] to provide a message including at least one token associated with
the at least one card identification number to a communication device
to request a selection of the at least one token
Appeal 2010-001947
Application 11/554,610
5
[3] and to receive transaction information regarding a transaction
made at a business unit from the communication device.

Thus, the argued claim limitations require that the transaction platform
provide “a message including at least one token associated with the at least
one card” to a “communication device to request a selection of the at least
one token” and to “receive transaction information regarding a transaction
made at a business unit from the communication device.”
Here, Talker is directed to e-commerce authorization and verification
using multiple key/pin storage and includes a transaction message to verify
the validity of a credit card signature using stored PINs/KEYs (FF1).
Talker describes an Action Initiating Party 12 as including a company or
vendor trying to verify an action, the Entity as including an individual whom
authorizes an action by providing a PIN/KEY, and the Verification
Authority 16 as providing verification using stored PINs/KEYS (FF2).
Talker, in Fig. 1, discloses the Entity 14 providing a PIN to an input means
18 (modem, fax, keyboard, telephone) of an action initiating party 12 which
provides the verification request to the verification authority system (FF3).
Talker’s disclosure in Fig. 1 of the Entity 14 providing a PIN (which
would serve as a message including a token requesting the account be used)
to an input means 18 (with the disclosed modem, fax, keyboard, telephone
serving as a communication device) of an action initiating party 12 (which
serves as a business unit) which provides the verification request to the
verification authority system (which receives the transaction information)
thus meets the argued claim limitations [2] and [3].
Appeal 2010-001947
Application 11/554,610
6
For these reasons the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellant
has provided the same arguments for the remaining claims and the rejection
of these claims is sustained for the same reasons given above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-34 is sustained.

AFFIRMED

mls

ALSTON & BIRD LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000