Ex Parte Flinchem

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2016

11642326 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/642,326 12/20/2006 Edward Flinchem
29586 7590 02/25/2016
FSPLLC
431 H Street
Crescent City, CA 95531
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
FSP0370 2498
EXAMINER
HEWITT II, CAL VIN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2016 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):
charles.a.mirho@fspllc.com
PA TENTS@FSPLLC.COM
jane@fspllc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD FLIN CHEM
Appeal2013-010143 1
Application 11/642,326
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 4--10. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates generally to personal identification numbers
(PIN) for financial transactions. Spec. para. 5.
1 The Appellants identify Patent Navigation Inc. as the real party in interest.
Br. 2.
Appeal2013-010143
Application 11/642,326
Claim 4 is illustrative:
4. A method comprising:
a wireless mobile device exchanging signals with a PIN
server device to verify therewith an identity of the wireless
mobile device or an identity of a user of the wireless mobile
device;
the wireless mobile device exchanging signals with
computing devices of a financial institution to verify therewith
an identity of the user of the wireless mobile device;
the devices of the financial institution and the PIN server
exchanging signals to verify that the mobile device is associated
with the user; and
the PIN server communicating one or more PIN s to the
wireless mobile device via signals that pass at least partially via
wireless electromagnetic channels.
Claims 4--10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fletcher (US 7,472,827 B2, iss. Jan. 6, 2009) and Keech
(US 2002/0059146 Al, pub. May. 16, 2002).2
We REVERSE.
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the combination of
Fletcher and Keech does not disclose all the limitations of claim 4, most
specifically "the devices of the financial institution and the PIN server
exchanging signals to verify that the mobile device is associated with the
user." Br. 11-12. The Examiner identifies this disputed limitation being
disclosed in Fletcher at column 12, lines 58---66, Figure 8 (Final Act. 4), and
column 18, lines 60---67 (Answer 6-7).
2 The Examiner indicates the rejection of claims 4--10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Keech is withdrawn. Answer 3.
2
Appeal2013-010143
Application 11/642,326
Figure 8, shown below, is cited for the "arrow between LUP Database
6 and Back End Application Service 8" (Final Act. 4), highlighted below in
the circled portion of the figure:
Annotated Figure 8 of Fletcher, highlighting the arrows between the LUP
Database 6 and Back End Application Service 8
Column 12 of Fletcher describes a portion of Figure 8, concerning
processing a merchant's request to a financial institution for settlement of a
transaction, stating:
The back end application service 8 interfaces with LUP
transaction system 18, as necessary, to determine if the number
is a valid LUP 15 (i.e., not a fraudulent number) and/or if PCA
20 associated with LUP 15 is also valid. IfLUP 15 and/or PCA
20 is valid, AP system 9 pays the merchant 2. LUP database 6
is updated to reflect the transaction information.
Col. 12, 11. 61---67. We infer from this cited section that the Examiner finds
the claimed "devices of the financial institution" and "PIN server" at LUP
database 6 (on LUP Transaction System 18) and Back End Application
3
Appeal2013-010143
Application 11/642,326
Service 8 (on Back End system 14) of Figure 8. The signals exchanged
between these services/servers, however, only determine if a limited-use PIN
is "valid." This PIN could perhaps conceivably stand as a proxy for the
identity of a user. The Examiner, however, has not identified adequate
evidence or presented sufficient reasoning in the record that the limited use
PIN verifies "that the mobile device is associated with the user."
Specifically, the PIN appears to have no connection to a mobile device, as
claimed.
Column 18, lines 60-67 of Fletcher addresses Figure 11, and concerns
a merchant submitting a request for payment for a transaction, stating the
request "is routed to a card authorization system (CAS) 7 for authorization
(step 80). The CAS 7 recognizes the transaction as involving LUP 15 and
forwards the transaction information to the Authorization Request Listener
77 program on the application server 5 (step 81)." Col. 18, 11. 63-67. Figure
11 of Fletcher is shown below:
4
Appeal2013-010143
Application 11/642,326
.--·~::~
,/
I
i
FIG, 11
Annotated Figure 11 of Fletcher, highlighting servers 2, 7, and 5 and
information flows 80 and 81
From the cited text and associated figure, we infer that the Examiner
finds the claimed "devices of the financial institution" and "PIN server"
from amongst the merchant 2, card authorization system 7, and application
server 5, but it is not dear which server corresponds to which eiement. The
cited text appears to disclose only that a determination is made whether a
transaction involves a limited user PIN, but does not verify "that the mobile
device is associated with the user."
Therefore, as to the claim limitation "the devices of the financial
institution and the PIN server exchanging signals to verify that the mobile
device is associated with the user," we determine that the Examiner has not
established an initial case of obviousness, based on the disclosures of
Fletcher cited by the Examiner.
For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4. We also do
not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5-10 that are rejected along
with claim 4, from which they depend.
5
Appeal2013-010143
Application 11/642,326
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 4--10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6