Ex Parte Fredell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

14347742 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/347,742 03/27/2014
23908 7590 07/05/2016
RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
NINETEENTH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter Fredell
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.
BRNNP0127WOUS 4666
EXAMINER
BUCHANAN, CHRISTOPHER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
ipdocket@rennerotto.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER FREDELL and MIKAEL SIGNARSSON
Appeal2016-006038
Application 14/347,742 1
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Peter Fredell et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-18 and 21-23. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellants identify Seamless Distribution AB as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-00603 8
Application 14/347,742
THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method of identifying a purchaser at a retailer, point of
sale, and performing a secure electronic payment between the
purchaser and the retailer, wherein the purchaser has a mobile
device comprising at least one of; a camera, a radio frequency
receiver and a radio frequency transmitter utilized to conduct a
purchase, comprising:
an account aware transaction system receiving
communication from both the point of sale, and the purchaser,
the transaction system settling the transfer of payment from the
purchaser to the retailer by signals transmitted through different
channels of communication, whereby the transaction system
receives communication from the point of sale through at least
one of a wired first channel, and a wireless first channel of
communication, and the transaction system receives
communication from the mobile device via a second wireless
radio frequency channel;
the transaction system providing each purchase with a
unique reference identity;
the transaction system receiving at least one signed
mobile device message that was generated and transmitted by
said mobile device through the second channel, the message
comprising the identity of the mobile device and the identity of
the point of sale having been derived from a tag visually placed
at the point of sale and read by the mobile device;
the transaction system receiving at least one point of sale
message that was generated by automatic prompting and
transmitted by the point of sale on the first channel
independently from the mobile device message to the
transaction system, the at least one point of sale message having
a part comprising at least the identity of the point of sale and
the sum to be paid by the purchaser;
2
Appeal 2016-00603 8
Application 14/347,742
the transaction system comparing the at least one point of
sale message with the mobile device message to match the
point of sale message with the mobile device message and
deciding a match when the identity part of the point of sale
message matches the identity part of the mobile device
message;
the transaction system issuing a transaction matched
signal to the mobile device; and
the transaction system receiving a go-ahead signal
transmitted by the mobile device comprising approval from the
purchaser of the sum to be paid and of a match between the
point of sale identity and the mobile device identity, and the
transaction system settling the payment by withdrawing
payment from the purchaser, and crediting the account relating
to the point of sale for the unique transaction reference provided
to a single purchase.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies unon the followirn.! as evidence of
unpatentability:
White
Stals
~ .__,
US 2010/0320266 Al
US 8,332,323 B2
The following rejection is before us for review:
Dec. 23, 2010
Dec. 11, 2012
1. Claims 1-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stals and White.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-18 and 21-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stals and White?
3
Appeal 2016-00603 8
Application 14/347,742
FINDINGS OF FACT
Except as indicated below, we rely on the Examiner's factual findings
stated in the Answer. Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis
below.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner's position is that Stals discloses all that is claimed in
independent claims 1 and 10 except that "it does not explicitly show the
purchaser to identify the point of sale by reading a tag visually placed at the
point of sale using the mobile device and translating the tag data into the
point of sale identity" (Final Act. 3), for which White is relied upon.
According to the Examiner,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify the method and
arrangement of Stals so that the purchaser identifies the point of
sale by reading a tag visually placed at the point of sale using the
mobile device and translating the tag data into the point of sale
identity, as taught by White, to enable easy identification of the
point of sale and ensure that payment information is correct.
Final Act. 4.
The Appellants disagree with the finding that Stals discloses "the
transaction system receiving at least one signed mobile device message that
was generated and transmitted by said mobile device through the second
channel, the message comprising the identity of the mobile device and the
identity of the point of sale." App. Br. 9. The Examiner found the claim
limitation
the transaction system rece1vmg at least one signed mobile
device message that was generated and transmitted by said
4
Appeal 2016-00603 8
Application 14/347,742
mobile device through the second channel, the message
comprising the identity of the mobile device and the identity of
the point of sale [having been derived from a tag visually placed
at the point of sale and read by the mobile device]
disclosed in Figures IA, 7A, and "col. 8 line 17-24, [where the] 2nd entity
transmits a second message including transaction information, [and] col. 7
line 50-54, [where the] transaction information includes identities of 1st and
2nd entities" Final Act. 3.
The Examiner responded to the Appellants argument by reiterating
that "the Stals reference discloses (in Figs. 1 A and 7 A and col. 8 lines 17-
24) a mobile device (second entity) generating and transmitting a message to
a transaction system (payment company)." Ans. 2. The Examiner
discounted the disclosure at column 7, lines 50-54. See id.
We have reviewed Stals. We do not see in Figures 1 and 7 any
disclosure of a system receiving a "signed mobile device message ...
comprising the identity of the mobile device'' (claim 1 (emphasis added)).
Column 8, lines 17-24, reproduced below, also does not disclose that.
Subsequent to the extraction of the transaction information
from the identification code in step 24, the second entity
transmits a second message to the server as indicated at 25, where
the second message transmitted to the server comprises the
transaction information and, maybe additional information as
will be discussed later on.
Stals, col. 8, 11. 17-24.
We do see discussion at, for example, column 8, lines 4--16, about
receiving an identification code. Said code is described as "having the
transaction information as indicated at 23 [of Figure 1 a; i.e., "1st entity
5
Appeal 2016-00603 8
Application 14/347,742
generates identification code having the transaction information"]." Id. at
col. 4, 11. 57-58. According to Stals,
This transaction information can include any kind of information
identifying a transaction which finally has to be performed. The
transaction information can be a transaction identification, a
description of the second entity and/or the first entity, a
description of the product or service in question, a description of
the price in question, time stamps etc.
Id. at col. 7, 11. 47-53. But this disclosure is insufficient to lead one to
receive a "signed mobile device message ... comprising the identity of the
mobile device" (claim 1) as claimed. Albeit Stals lists an entity's
description as the kind of information that may be included in the received
identification code, it does not adequately support the finding of fact that
Stals discloses a system receiving a "signed mobile device message ...
comprising the identity of the mobile device" (id.) as claimed.
There being no other evidence or argument addressing said claim
limitation at issue, we agree with the Appellants that a prima facie case of
obviousness for the claimed subject matter has not been made out in first
instance by a preponderance of the evidence.
The rejection is not sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-18 and 21-23 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6