Ex Parte Filatov

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 20, 2007

10155453 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 20, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ALEXANDER FILATOV
____________

Appeal 2006-1160
Application 10/155,453
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: April 20, 2007
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
JEAN R. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-14, 16-18, and 21-23. Under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant appeals only the rejection of claims 1-14 and
16-18. (Br. 5.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2006-1160
Application 10/155,453

A. INVENTION
The invention at issue on appeal helps prevent a bank check having a
fraudulent signature from being accepted at a point of sale ("POS").
(Specification 1.) The Appellant estimates that bad checks cost retail outlets
somewhere between twelve billion and fifteen billion dollars a year. He
further estimated that 30 to 50 percent of the losses result from forged
signatures of account holders. (Id.)

Consequently, the invention stores signatures from checks drawn on a
specific account in a "reference signature set." (Id. 2.) When a new check is
received at a POS station, a verification system retrieves the reference
signature set and compares it to the signature on the new check. If the latter
signature matches at least one of the reference signatures in the set, the
verification system sends a "valid signature message" to the POS station.
(Id.) If not, the system sends the reference signature set to the station. (Id.)

Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows.
1. A signature verification system for verifying a signature on a
bank check received at a point of sale system comprising:

a retrieve module retrieving a reference signature set
having a plurality of signatures by one or more account owners of
a checking account on which the check is drawn;

a signature verification module comparing the signature on
the check against the signatures in the reference signature set;

a send acceptance module sending an accept message to the
point of sale system if the signature verification module verifies
the signature; and

2
Appeal 2006-1160
Application 10/155,453

a send reference module for sending the reference signature
set to the point of sale system if the signature verification does not
verify the signature.

B. REJECTIONS
Claims 1-2, 10,17-18, 21-23, and 28-30 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,559,895 ("Lee") and U.S.
Patent No. 6,149,056 ("Stinson"). Claims 3-9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 24, 27, 31, and
33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lee; Stinson;
and U.S. Patent No. 6,220,515 ("Bello"). Claims 12, 25, 26, and 32 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lee; Stinson; Bello; and
U.S. Patent No. 6,290,129 ("Momose").

II. ISSUE
Rather than reiterate the positions of parties in toto, we focus on the
issue therebetween. The Examiner admits, "Lee does not specifically
disclose a send reference module for sending the reference signature set to
the point of sale system if the signature verification does not verify the
signature." (Answer 4.)
Therefore, the Examiner present[s] Stinson, who specifically
discloses that "when the processor 300 is unable to verify the
customer's identity, or is unauthorized to cash the customer's
check automatically, the process may transmit information
about the customer . . . personnel at the CSC . . . would then
attempt to verify the customer's identity and authorize cashing
of the customer's check" (Stinson, col[.] 6, lines 19-27).
(Id. 9.) The Appellant argues that in the latter reference "the information is
being transmitted to the centralized service center and not a point of sale
system." (Br. 14.) Therefore, the issue is whether Stinson would have
3
Appeal 2006-1160
Application 10/155,453

suggested sending a reference signature set to the POS system where a bank
check was received when the signature on the check cannot be verified.

In addressing the issue, the Board conducts a two-step analysis. First,
we construe the independent claims at issue to determine their scope.
Second, we determine whether the construed claims would have been
obvious.

III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Our analysis begins with construing the claim limitations at issue.
"[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'" In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1210-11 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed.
Cir. 2000)).

Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations:
"a send reference module for sending the reference signature set to the
point of sale system if the signature verification does not verify the
signature." Claim 10 includes similar limitations. Giving the independent
claims the broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require sending
a set of reference signatures to the POS system where a bank check was
received upon failure to verify a signature on the check.

4
Appeal 2006-1160
Application 10/155,453

IV. OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS
"Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next
inquiry is whether the subject matter would have been obvious." Ex Parte
Massingill, No. 2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *3 (B.P.A.I 2004). "In
rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima
facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person
of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).

Here, Stinson "provides automated check cashing through an
unmanned check-cashing apparatus." (Col. 1, ll. 46-47.) The "automated
check-cashing unit 100, [is] also referred to as a point-of-sale ('POS') unit,"
(col. 5, ll. 14-15), and "includes a check reader 130 into which the
customer's check is inserted for processing." (Id. ll. 23-25.) "[T]he check-
cashing unit 100 is controlled by a processor 300." (Id. ll. 50-51.) For
example, "[u]sing a database loaded from a storage device 320 into
memory 325, the processor verifies the customer's identity and determines
whether the processor is authorized to cash the customer's check." (Col. 5,
l. 65 – col. 6, l. 1.)

5
Appeal 2006-1160
Application 10/155,453

We cannot find that the processor sends data, let alone a set of
reference signatures, however, to the POS unit 100 when the customer's
identity cannot be verified. To the contrary, "[w]hen the processor 300 is
unable to verify the customer's identity, or is unauthorized to cash the
customer's check automatically, the processor may transmit information
about the customer and the customer's check to a remotely-located
centralized services center ('CSC') through the public telephone network (see
FIG. 4)." (Stinson , col. 6, ll. 19-24.) Because Stinson's POS unit 100
transmits information to the remotely-located CSC, we agree with the
Appellant that "the direction of information transmission is in the completely
opposite direction to the direction of information transmission expressly
recited in claim 1," (Br. 14), and in claim 10.

The Examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of
Bello or Momose cures the aforementioned deficiency of Lee and Stinson.
Absent a teaching or suggestion of the customer's identity, we are
unpersuaded of a prima facie case of obviousness.

V. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1
and 10 and the rejections of claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-18, which depend
therefrom.

6
Appeal 2006-1160
Application 10/155,453

REVERSED

tdl/ce

MERCHANT & GOULD PC
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402-0903
7