Ex Parte ChangDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesNov 30, 201011554610 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 2010) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation