Ex Parte Haidar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

10416807 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/416,807 05/15/2003 Mahmoud Nabih Youssef Haidar 6068/PCT 1829
6858 7590 03/28/2013
BREINER & BREINER, L.L.C.
115 NORTH HENRY STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
PHAM, TUAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MAHMOUD NABIH YOUSSEF HAIDAR
____________

Appeal 2010-008547
Application 10/416,807
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JEREMY J. CURCURI,
and DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-5 and 7-10, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. See App. Br. 2.1 Claim 6 is cancelled. See id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 7,
2009 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 12, 2010 (“Ans.”),
and the Reply Brief filed May 11, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2010-008547
Application 10/416,807

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to accessing an automated teller machine
(“ATM”) using a cellular telephone. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the
invention, reads as follows (with paragraphing added):
1. A financial transaction processing system
comprising
a mobile telephony system having a limited length
message service facility,
a plurality of computer-based payment processing or
clearance systems adapted to link to a network of
automated teller machines, and
payment system server interface means which does not
form a part of either the network of automated teller
machines or the plurality of computer-based payment
processing or clearance systems,
wherein the payment system server interface means is
arranged to enable limited length messages sent from a
mobile telephone user to be input into one of the plurality
of payment processing or clearance systems and by
software controlling the one of the plurality of payment
processing or clearance systems to enable the interface
means to validate the limited length message sent and to
action, following such validation, a payment transaction
resulting in issuance of currency from an automated teller
machine.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Zalewski US 6,771,981 B1 Aug. 3, 2004
(filed Sept. 29, 2000)
Appeal 2010-008547
Application 10/416,807

3
Drummond US 6,796,490 B1 Sept. 28, 2004
(filed Sept. 27, 2001)
Chi US 2004/0199466 A1 Oct. 7, 2004
(filed May 3, 2000)
Pitroda US 2008/0114659 A1 May 15, 2008
(filed Aug. 11, 1999)
Vazvan WO 96/13814 May 9, 1996

Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Drummond and Pitroda. See Ans. 3-5.
Claims 2, 3, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Drummond, Pitroda, and Zalewski. See Ans. 3, 6-7.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Drummond, Pitroda, Zalewski, and Vazvan. See Ans. 3,
7-8.
Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Drummond, Pitroda, Zalewski, and Chi. See Ans. 3, 9.

ANALYSIS
REJECTION OF CLAIM 1 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds that Drummond teaches each limitation of claim
1, including a “payment system server interface means.” See Ans. 4-5.
However, the Examiner acknowledges that Drummond fails to teach that the
payment system server interface means “does not form a part of either the
network of automated teller machines or the plurality of computer-based
processing or clearance systems” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 5. The
Examiner finds that Pitroda teaches this (particularly, Pitroda’s “Payment
Gateway” shown in Figure 3), and concludes that a person of ordinary skill
Appeal 2010-008547
Application 10/416,807

4
in the art would have incorporated the teachings of Pitroda into Drummond’s
system “in order to only replace the server part without replac[ing] the
whole circuit board of the ATM when the server is down.” Id.
Appellant contends that Drummond does not teach a “network of
automated teller machines.” App. Br. 11. The Examiner finds that
Drummond’s Figure 22 shows a network of automated teller machines
(wireless ATM system 30, which includes an ATM server coupled to a
Wireless Access point, to which three ATMs communicate) linked to a
plurality of computer-based payment processing or clearance systems
(banking system 46, which the Examiner finds includes a plurality of
computer-based payment systems). See Ans. 4. Appellant contends that this
is incorrect, arguing that each of Drummond’s ATM machines is
“independent of the other” and connected “‘directly’ to a host banking
system.” App. Br. 11; accord id. at 12 (“[E]ach of ATM1-ATM3 [of Figure
2] are separate and independent of each other . . . .”).
We are not persuaded by this argument. A “network” is simply “[a]
series of points interconnected by communication channels” or “[a]n
interconnected or interrelated group of nodes.” IEEE 100, THE
AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARDS TERMS, 7th ed., at 725
(2000). Appellant does not adequately explain why a “network” should be
more limited to require ATMs that are not “independent,” nor does
Appellant point to support in the Specification for such a limitation. See

2 The rejection refers to Figure 1. See Ans. 4. However, the Examiner’s
references are to components appearing in Figure 2, which is reproduced on
the same page of Drummond as Figure 1. See id. We consider the
Examiner’s reference to Figure 1, rather than Figure 2, to be a harmless
typographical error.
Appeal 2010-008547
Application 10/416,807

5
Ans. 12. Drummond’s Figure 2 clearly shows three ATMs (32, 34, and 36)
interconnected through a wireless hub (40). See also Drummond, col. 5, ll.
32-42 (describing a plurality of ATMs communicating with an ATM server
over a wireless network); Fig. 3 (showing an alternative embodiment in
which two ATMs are interconnected through a digital cellular network).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Drummond teaches a network of
ATMs.
Appellant also contends that Drummond’s Figure 5 shows only “a
single host banking system coupled to a single ATM and not a network of
ATMs.” App. Br. 11. Appellant notes, “the embodiments described in
Drummond are alternative embodiments and not variations of the same
embodiment.” App. Br. 15. While Figure 5 focuses on interfacing with a
single ATM as a specific example, we do not read Drummond as suggesting
that this teaching is divorced from the more general teaching of Figures 2
and 3, which clearly show a host banking system liked to a network of
ATMs. Thus, we are not persuaded by this argument.
Appellant further contends that Drummond does not teach “a plurality
of computer-based payment processing systems . . . .” App. Br. 12. We
disagree. Although Figures 2 and 5 each depict a single host banking
system, the Examiner correctly points out Drummond’s description of a
“wireless ATM server 38 [that] is operative to communicate with at least
one remote host banking system 46.” Ans. 12-13 (quoting Drummond, col.
5, ll. 47-49) (emphasis Examiner’s). Drummond’s use of “at least one”
suggests that the network of ATMs can be linked to more than one host
banking system.
Appeal 2010-008547
Application 10/416,807

6
Appellant also contends that Drummond does not disclose a “payment
system server interface means” that “validate[s] the limited length message
sent.” App. Br. 13. While Appellant admits that Drummond
discloses an “exemplary terminal interface server [that] is operative to
contemporaneously authorize each separate withdrawal transaction through
communication with a host banking system,” Appellant argues that this
terminal interface server has “no mechanism for validating a limited length
message . . . .” App. Br. 13 (quoting Drummond, col. 8, ll. 44-48). Instead,
Appellant contends, the “authorization” is performed by the “remote host
system” (which we interpret as the host banking system 132) and “merely
communicated” to the terminal interface server. Id. We are not persuaded
by Appellant’s arguments. While Drummond’s host banking system may
play a role in authorizing transactions, Drummond is clear that the terminal
interface server 128 also participates in the authorization. See Drummond,
col. 8, ll. 44-48. Appellant does not adequately explain why claim 1 requires
a payment system server interface means exclusively to validate the limited
length message.
Appellant also presents several challenges to the combination of
Drummond and Pitroda. For example, Appellant argues that it is essential to
Drummond that the terminal interface server forms a part of the ATM. See
App. Br. 10 (citing Drummond, col. 7, ll. 52-53). However, Appellant’s
citation says nothing about the importance of the terminal interface server
forming a part of the ATM. See Drummond, col. 7, ll. 52-53. Appellant
also contends that moving Drummond’s final payment authorization away
from the ATM “would merely be regarded as a security risk . . . .” App. Br.
Appeal 2010-008547
Application 10/416,807

7
17. However, Appellant cites to no persuasive evidence to support this
argument. See id.
Appellant also argues that Pitroda would not have been combined
with Drummond because Pitroda’s “payment gateway” is only connected to
one bank, not a plurality of banks, and also does not provide transaction
validation. See App. Br. 16. However, the Examiner only cited Pitroda to
show it was well known to separate a server interface from both a network
of ATMs and a plurality of payment processing or clearance systems, “not to
combine the whole structure of Pitroda into [the] structure of Drummond.”
Ans. 15-16. Appellant’s challenge amounts to “attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); see also id. at
425 (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). The
Examiner has articulated a reason to combine the references that we
conclude has some rational underpinning. See Ans. 5-6. Appellant has not
persuasively explained why this conclusion is erroneous.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.

REJECTION OF CLAIMS 2, 3, AND 7 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 2, 3, and 7 depend on claim 1. The Examiner finds that
Zalewski, which discloses a mobile station (e.g., a mobile telephone) that is
identified by a subscriber identity module (“SIM”) card along with a
personal identification number (“PIN”), teaches the additional limitations of
Appeal 2010-008547
Application 10/416,807

8
claims 2, 3, and 7. See Ans. 6-7 (citing Zalewski, col. 1, ll. 40-55, Fig. 9,
item 1013).
Appellant contends that a person of ordinary skill would not have
combined Zalewski with Drummond and Pitroda because Zalewski teaches
authorizing financial transactions using a credit account issuer, not a central
portal database. See App. Br. 21-22. Appellant once again attacks a
reference (Zalewski) individually, rather than addressing the combination as
a whole. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425-26. The Examiner cites Drummond
and Pitroda for the location of the recited validation and Zalewski for use of
SIM cards and PINs. See Ans. 6-7, 16. Appellant does not adequately show
error in this combination.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 7.

REJECTION OF CLAIMS 4 AND 5 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 4 and 5 are multiple dependent claims, depending on each of
claims 1-3. The Examiner finds that Vazvan teaches the additional
limitations of claims 4 and 5. See Ans. 7-8. Appellant contends that a
person of ordinary skill would not have combined Vazvan with Drummond
and Pitroda (and Zalewski) because Vazvan lacks several features of a
payment system server interface means. See App. Br. 24-26. This, too, is an
attack on Vazvan individually without considering the Examiner’s
combination as a whole. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425-26. We are not
persuaded that Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s combination.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5.

Appeal 2010-008547
Application 10/416,807

9
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 8-10 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 8-10 depend on claim 1. Appellant only nominally argues
claims 8-10 separately, contending that “[t]he deficiencies of the primary
references as set forth above still remain upon combination with Chi.” App.
Br. 27. We sustain the rejection of claims 8-10 for the reasons given for
claim 1.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 and 7-10 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

gvw