Ex Parte Haight et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

14229283 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/229,283 03/28/2014
51444 7590 03/28/2018
COOPER LEGAL GROUP I ORACLE
4700 Rockside Road
Summit One, Suite 510
Independence, OH 44131
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronald W. Haight
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.
ORA130768 (0-395) 7109
EXAMINER
FAROOQUI, QUAZI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
MUthoff@CooperLegalGroup.com
DDay@CooperLegalGroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD W. HAIGHT, BRETT J. LARSEN,
TONY M. ZGARBA, and CHRISTIAN M. GREENE
Appeal2017-009206
Application 14/229,283
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BETH Z. SHAW, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-15, 17, 19, 20, and 22-27, which constitute all claims
pending in this application. Claims App'x. Claims 3, 6, 8, 16, 18, and 21
have been canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Oracle International Corp.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009206
Application 14/229,283
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter is directed to a
method and system for allowing a client device (110) access to a point-of-
service (POS) application via a web session. Spec. i-f 2, Figs. 1, 3. In
particular, upon receiving from the client device (110) an access request
including a device identifier uniquely identifying the client device, a
computer system (105) compares the client device identifier with stored
identifiers to determine whether the client device is authorized to access the
POS application. Id. i-fi-136, 37, 45, 46. Upon determining that the client
device (110) is authorized, the computer system (105) creates with the
authorized client device (110) a web session that tracks and associates
transaction information therewith to subsequently allow the client device
(110) to access the POS application via the created web-session. Id. i-f 41.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
1. A method performed by a computer system including at
least a processor and a memory, the method comprising:
receiving, at the computer system of a commercial
location, a network communication including a device identifier
from a device requesting to access the computer system,
wherein the device identifier uniquely identifies the device;
in response to the receiving the device identifier,
determining, by the processor, whether the device is authorized
to access a point-of-service application by comparing the device
identifier to authorized identifiers stored by the computer
system, and determining if a match is found; and
in response to determining that the match is found which
indicates that the device is authorized,
2
Appeal2017-009206
Application 14/229,283
creating, by the computer system, a web session between
the computer system and the device, wherein the web session
tracks transaction information from the device and the web
session associates the transaction information with the device;
allowing the device access to the point-of-service
application via the web session, and
providing the device with application profile information
for the point-of-service application, wherein the application
profile information is specific to the device and is attached to
the web session.
Dua
Hawkes
Hruska
Prior Art Relied upon
US 2006/0165060 Al
US 2013/0067552 Al
US 2013/0282588 Al
Rejections on Appeal
July 27, 2006
Mar. 14, 2013
Oct. 24, 2013
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 11-14, 17, 19, 22, 26, and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Hawkes
and Hruska. Final Act. 5-15.
Claims 2, 9, 10, 15, 20, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Hawkes, Hruska,
and Dua. Final Act. 15-22.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 9-15, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-7. 2 We are
unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions.
2 Rather than reiterate all the arguments of Appellants and all the Examiner's
findings, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 3, 2017), the Reply
Brief (filed June 13, 2017), and the Answer (mailed April 13, 2017) ("Ans.")
for the respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
3
Appeal2017-009206
Application 14/229,283
First, Appellants argue that the combination of Hawkes and Hruska
does not teach or suggest generating a web session between a computer
system and a user device in response to a match indicating the user device is
authorized, as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 10-12. In particular,
Appellants argue that Hruska discloses a first embodiment wherein a
customer may set up a personal account with a financial institution (i-f 13),
and a second embodiment wherein a merchant may setup a different account
for a company with the financial institution (i-f 14). Id. at 10. According to
Appellants, because the two embodiments disclosed by Hruska are intended
to be used by separate and distinct entities, they are not related to each other.
More particularly, Appellants argue that although Hruska discloses in both
instances downloading a point of sale application by using a web session to
open the financial account with the bank, the web session is not opened in
response to a match of the client's device ID with a stored ID indicating that
the client is authorized. Id. at 12. Additionally, Appellants argue the
Examiner has relied in the Answer and for the first time during prosecution
on lines 30-34 and 39-43 of paragraph 13 of Hruska instead of rebutting the
arguments presented in the Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 3.
These arguments are not persuasive. At the outset, we note
Appellants' concern regarding the Examiner's alleged change of the
rejection should have been addressed by way of a petition to the technology
center Director overseeing the Examiner's art unit. Because Appellants have
failed to timely file the petition, but have instead availed themselves of the
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
4
Appeal2017-009206
Application 14/229,283
opportunity to fully address in the Reply Brief the newly cited portions of
the Hruska reference, Appellants have waived any arguments regarding an
improperly entered new ground of rejection.
Second, we agree with the Examiner that because Appellants'
arguments are directed to Hruska alone, whereas the rejection relies upon the
combination of Hawkins and Hruska, Appellants' arguments are not
responsive to the specific findings made by the Examiner. Ans. 3--4. As
correctly noted by the Examiner, Appellants' arguments are tantamount to
an individual attack against the references. One cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981). In particular, the Examiner relies upon Hawkes' backend
authentication process to teach determining whether a client device is
authorized to access resources by comparing the device ID with stored
device ID information so as to authenticate the user thereof in response to a
match. Ans. 4 (citing Hawkes i-fi-19, 35, Figs. 1, 8, 9). The Examiner further
relies upon Hruska's teaching of opening a web session to complement
Hawkes. Id. at 4--5 (citing Hruska i-f 13:1--4, 39--43). 3 Consequently,
Appellants' attack on Hruska alone is misplaced because the Examiner
relied upon the combined disclosures of Hawkes and Hruska to teach the
disputed limitation.
3 We note in passing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily
appreciated that Hawkes also teaches the web session between the user
computer and the server following the authentication process authorizing the
computer system to access requested data. Hawkes Fig. 10.
5
Appeal2017-009206
Application 14/229,283
Although the newly cited portions of Hruska discuss the backend
generating a session specific log-in code for the mobile application unit upon
the occurrence of a session log, we do not agree with Appellants that the
Examiner is relying on the login code to teach the web session. Reply Br. 4.
Instead, the proposed combination relied upon by the Examiner aims at
combining the web session taught by Hruska with Hawkes' authentication
system to teach the disputed limitations. Ans. 4--6. Further, we likewise do
not agree with Appellants that because Hruska teaches establishing the web
session before submitting the login code, the proposed combination of
Hawkes and Hruska does not teach an authorization process followed by the
establishment of the web session. Reply Br. 5. As noted above, the
Examiner relies first upon Hawkes' authentication, followed by a reliance on
Hruska's establishment of the web session. We find the Examiner's
proposed combination of the cited teachings of Hawkes and Hruska is no
more than a simple arrangement of old elements with each performing the
same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one
would expect from such an arrangement. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The ordinarily skilled artisan, being "a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton," would be able to fit the teachings of
the cited references together like pieces of a puzzle to predictably result in a
financial transaction system wherein a user device is first authenticated
before the user can be allowed to open a web session with the financial
institution to perform a desired transaction. Id. at 420-21. Because
Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner's proffered
combination would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art," we agree with the Examiner that the proposed
6
Appeal2017-009206
Application 14/229,283
modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled
artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9--15, 17, 19, 20, and 22-
27, to the extent Appellants have either not presented separate patentability
arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those
previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, those claims fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Further, to the extent Appellants
have raised additional arguments for patentability of these claims, we find
that the Examiner has rebutted in the Answer each and every one of those
arguments by a preponderance of the evidence. Ans. 6-15. We adopt the
Examiner's findings and underlying reasoning, which we incorporate herein
by reference. Because Appellants have failed to persuasively rebut the
Examiner's findings regarding the rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-15, 17,
19, 20, and 22-27, Appellants have failed to show error in the Examiner's
rejection of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims
1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9--15, 17, 19, 20, and 22-27.
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) (iv).
AFFIRMED
7