Ex Parte Hendra

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 29, 2010

10296991 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
10/296,991 04/28/2003 Kendro Hendra 042933/305329 7435
10949 7590 12/29/2010
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
OBEID, FAHD A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte KENDRO HENDRA
____________________

Appeal 2010-004259
Application 10/296,991
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU
R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-004259
Application 10/296,991
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 47-80 and 82-92. Claims 1-46 and 81
are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
We affirm.

THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant claims systems and a method for enabling the provision of
goods or services.
Claim 47, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
47. A method of supplying goods or services comprising
transmitting to a mobile telecommunications device
receipt data corresponding to predetermined goods or a service,
transferring the data from the mobile device to a delivery
station and
enabling delivery of the goods or service by means of the
delivery station as a function of the transferred data.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kingdon
Webb
Vazvan
Davis.
Takayama
US 6,088,594
US 6,877,661
WO 97/45814
WO 98/49658
EP 0950968 A1
Jul. 11, 2000
Apr. 12, 2005
Dec. 4, 1997
Nov. 5, 1998
Oct. 20, 1999

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 47-54, 56-58, 60-64, 66, 67, 69-73, 75-
82, and 86-90 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Davis.
Appeal 2010-004259
Application 10/296,991
3
The Examiner rejected claim 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Davis and Vazvan.
The Examiner rejected claim 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Davis and Kingdon.
The Examiner rejected claims 83 and 85 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Davis and Takayama.
The Examiner rejected claims 59, 65, 74, 84, 91, and 92 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Davis and Webb.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 47-54, 56-58, 60-64, 66, 67,
69-73, 75-82, and 86-90 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Davis, because Davis discloses transferring receipt data from a mobile
device to a delivery station and enabling delivery of goods or service by
means of the delivery station as a function of the transferred data, by way of
sending a debit result M message from a client terminal to a merchant server
which uses the message to release goods to a purchaser?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Davis and Vazvan because Davis or Vazvan fail to
disclose the claim limitations?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Davis discloses a transaction system in Figure 9, showing the
relationships of a mobile device at client terminal 204, a delivery station
at merchant server 208, a vending server at payment server 206, a
Appeal 2010-004259
Application 10/296,991
4
transaction session key (TSK) for encryption, and paths 414 and 416
taken by the “debit result C” and “debit result M” messages.
Davis’ Figure 9

Figure 9 of Davis with client terminal 204, payment server 206, merchant
server 208, TSK, and message paths 414 and 416
2. Davis discloses the creation of a “debit result C” message containing
receipt data corresponding to goods purchased, whereby once a
completed purchase payment is confirmed by receipt of a “debit result”
message at the payment server 206, “the payment server encrypts the
‘debit result’ message with the TSK to form a ‘debit result C’ message
for the client. (Pg. 31 ll. 12-14).
3. Davis discloses a second copy of receipt data in a “debit result M”
message, whereby “[t]he payment server also generates its own
confirmation message and encrypts the confirmation message with the
derived key to form a ‘debit result M’ message.” (Pg. 31 ll. 14-16).
4. Davis discloses transferring receipt data from the payment server to a
mobile device, stating, “[t]he payment server then sends 414 the ‘debit
Appeal 2010-004259
Application 10/296,991
5
result C’ message and the ‘debit result M’ message to the client
terminal.” (Pg. 31 ll. 16-17).
5. Davis discloses transferring receipt data from the mobile device to a
delivery station to enable delivery of goods, because the mobile device
passes the ‘debit result M’ message 416 on to the merchant server and
“[o]nce the merchant server has determined that a valid ‘debit result M’
message has been received, it confirms that a valid transaction has taken
place and may release merchandise to the user.” (Pg. 31 ll. 18-25).
6. The Specification does not define the term “receipt data,” but describes
by example that, “receipt data may be supplied to the client device
process 30 in a process which does not necessarily involve a financial
transaction.” (Pg. 13 ll. 14-15).
7. Davis discloses displaying receipt data in the form of the “‘debit result
C’ message” which is “used by the client terminal to inform the user of a
successful transaction.” (Pg. 31 ll. 13-14).
8. Davis discloses that in a single “step 822 the client terminal decrypts and
processes the ‘debit result C’ message and passes the ‘debit result M’
message 416 on to the merchant server.” (Pg. 31 ll. 18-19).
9. Davis discloses a transaction identifier code that is displayed in a log of
the transaction kept by the mobile device, in that “[e]ach transaction
initiated by a user has a transaction identifier created at the merchant
server… .” (Pg. 17 ln. 36 to Pg. 18 ln. 1).
10. Davis discloses that the “[c]lient module 224 and the payment server
also use this unique transaction identifier for tracking and logging
information about the transaction.” (Pg. 18 ll. 1-3).
11. Davis discloses that “[c]lient module 224 is also responsible for
controlling displays to the user….” (Pg. 15 ll. 36-37).
Appeal 2010-004259
Application 10/296,991
6
12. Davis discloses that “client terminal 204 may also be embodied in any
portable device such as a laptop computer, a cellular telephone, or any
variety of a personal digital assistant (PDA) …” (Pg. 15 ll. 14-16).
13. The term “data reader” is not defined in the Specification.
14. Davis discloses that the “debit result M” message is received by the
mobile device for the purpose of transferring the message to a vending
station server, because “the client terminal decrypts and processes the
‘debit result C’ message and passes the ‘debit result M’ message 416 on
to the merchant server. Because the ‘debit result M’ message is
encrypted with the derived key, the client terminal or other entity is not
able to tamper with it.” (Pg. 31 ll. 18-21).

ANALYSIS
Claims 47, 51, 62, 71, 77, 78, 82, 86, 88, and 90
Initially, we note that Appellant argues independent claims 47, 51, 62,
71, 77, 78, 82, 86, 88, and 90 together as a group (App. Br. 7). Therefore,
we select representative claim 47 to decide the appeal of the independent
claims, with remaining independent claims 51, 62, 71, 77, 78, 82, 86, 88,
and 90 standing or falling with claim 47. Appellant does not provide a
substantive argument as to the separate patentability of dependent claims 52-
54, 56, 58, 59, 63-70, 72-76, 79, 80, 83-85, 87, 89, 91, and 92 that depend
from claims 47, 51, 62, 71, 78, and 86. Thus, claims 51-54, 56, 58, 59, 62-
80, and 82-92 stand or fall with claim 47.
Claim 47, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Davis, recites in
pertinent part, transferring the data from the mobile device to a delivery
station and enabling delivery of the goods or service by means of the
delivery station as a function of the transferred data.
Appeal 2010-004259
Application 10/296,991
7
Appellant argues that Davis does not disclose the transferring and
enabling steps set forth above (Appeal Br. 10). This argument is based on
the assertion that “receipt data can only be generated after payment.”
(Appeal Br. 7). Therefore, Appellant argues, Davis is deficient because
Davis’ “‘result message’ from the payment server cannot be receipt data (at
least as receipt data is defined in the present application), as the ‘result
message’ is generated before the merchant is notified that payment will be
forthcoming….” (Appeal Br. 9).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. First, the Examiner
found and we agree that Davis discloses the transferring and enabling steps
at page 31 lines 14-25 (Ans. 4). This is because our review of Davis
confirms that Davis discloses receipt data, in the form of confirmation-of-
payment messages “debit result C” and “debit result M,” created after
payment for a good is completed at the payment server 206 (FF 1, 2, 3).
After creation, Davis sends the receipt data messages from the payment
server 206 to the mobile device/client terminal 204 (FF 4). Next, Davis
transfers the receipt data in the “debit result M” message from the mobile
device/client terminal to a delivery station/merchant server, which uses the
message to confirm that a valid transaction has taken place and may then
release merchandise to the user (FF 5). Davis’ method, therefore, meets the
above transferring data and enabling delivery of goods or services limitation
because the “debit result M” message that is sent from the client terminal to
the merchant server functions to release goods based on the receipt of that
message.
Notwithstanding, contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the Specification
nevertheless describes receipt data in the context of not requiring a financial
transaction (FF 6), and hence not requiring a payment be completed before
Appeal 2010-004259
Application 10/296,991
8
generating receipt data (FF 6). This point alone renders Appellant’s
argument unpersuasive.
Claims 48 and 57
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Davis, and recites
in pertinent part displaying the receipt data on the mobile device and
reading the displayed data so as to transfer it to the delivery station.
Similarly worded claim 57 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Davis, and recites in pertinent part displaying the receipt data on the
apparatus to enable the transfer of the receipt data to the vending delivery
station.
Appellant’s argument directed to claim 48 is that “aside from whether
the ‘confirmation message’ constitutes receipt data, there is no indication
that the ‘confirmation message’ is read so as to transfer the message to a
delivery station.” (Appeal Br. 11). Appellant further argues, to claim 57,
that, “while the cited portion of Davis discloses the display of some data for
the cardholder, there is no indication that the display is of receipt data, nor
[is there any indication] that the display enables the transfer of receipt data
to a vending delivery station.” (Appeal Br. 11).
We disagree with the Appellant on both accounts because in Davis,
the mobile device/client terminal passes the “debit result M” message 416,
which is one of two copies of receipt data (FF 3), to the delivery
station/merchant server (FF 5). We find the “debit result M” message
contains the same receipt data as the displayed “debit result C” (FF 3).
Since in Davis the “debit result M” message/receipt data is transferred to the
delivery station/merchant server 208 when a copy thereof is also displayed at
the client terminal (FF 7), we read this as enabling transfer because Davis
Appeal 2010-004259
Application 10/296,991
9
discloses this operation as inextricably and conjunctively connected in a
single step (FF 8)
Claim 49
Claim 49, also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Davis, recites
in pertinent part displaying the receipt data in code.
Appellant asserts that, “[n]owhere does Davis suggest that any data
are displayed in code.” (Appeal Br. 12).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument because Davis discloses
that a unique transaction code is generated by the merchant server for each
transaction, and that the transaction code is used by the mobile device/client
terminal “client module 224” for tracking and logging information about the
transaction (FF 9, 10). Since the client module 224 is responsible for
“controlling displays to the user” (FF 11), it thus displays the unique
transaction code stored in the log, and therefore meets the claim limitation of
displaying the receipt data in code.
Claim 50
Claim 50, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Davis,
recites in pertinent part transferring the receipt data from the mobile device
to the delivery station via a wireless link.
Appellant argues that “Davis does discuss the use of, for example, a
cellular telephone as a ‘client terminal,’ and as such, there must be times
when such a device passes some data wirelessly to someplace. Davis does
not, however, teach a wireless link between the client terminal and a
delivery station.” (Appeal Br. 12).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument for the following
reason. Davis discloses that its mobile device/client terminal can be a
cellular telephone (FF 12). The mobile device/client terminal 204 in Davis
Appeal 2010-004259
Application 10/296,991
10
transfers receipt data to the delivery station/merchant server 208 (FF 1, 4),
and the mobile device/client terminal 204 can be a cellular telephone
(FF 12). We thus find that the transfer of data through a cellular-telephone-
implemented mobile device/client terminal would inherently be
implemented via a wireless link, including transfers to a delivery
station/merchant server. "[A] prima facie case of anticipation [may be]
based on inherency." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, Davis’ disclosure of a client terminal embodied in a cellular
telephone meets the claim limitation.
Claim 60
Claim 60, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Davis, recites in
pertinent part using a data reader at the vending delivery station to read the
receipt data from the client device.
Appellant argues “the card reader of Davis is disclosed as being
remote from the point at which goods/services might be delivered, and Davis
therefore does not teach ‘using a data reader at the vending delivery station’
as recited by Claim 60.” (Appeal Br. 13).
We disagree with the Appellant, because “data reader” has a broader
meaning which corresponds to more than just the card reader disclosed in
Davis. We base this observation on our finding that the term “data reader” is
not defined or described in the Specification (FF 13). We thus interpret
“data reader” to be a device which reads data. We find that Davis discloses
a data reader at the delivery station/merchant server 208. This is because the
mobile device/client terminal 204 in Davis transfers receipt data to the
delivery station/merchant server 208 so that the delivery station/merchant
server 208 can release merchandise to the user (FF 5). In so doing, the
Appeal 2010-004259
Application 10/296,991
11
delivery station/merchant server 208 reads the “debit result M” message
upon receipt in order to release the merchandise.
Claim 61
Appellant asserts error in the rejection of claim 61 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Davis because “Fig. 5 of Davis and its accompanying
description do not teach ‘sending the receipt data from the vending server to
the vending delivery station’ as recited by Claim 61.” (Appeal Br. 14).
We disagree with Appellant. We first find Davis discloses receipt
data (FF 1) in the form of a “debit result M” message (FF 3). Next, we find
that Davis discloses a vending server at its payment server 206, a mobile
device at its client terminal 204, and a delivery station at its merchant server
208 (FF 1). Davis sends the receipt data/“debit result M” from the payment
server/vending server 206 to the delivery station/merchant server 208 by
way of the mobile device/client terminal 204 (FF 4, 5). The payment
server/vending server in Davis, as the claim requires, sends the debit result
M message to the intended destination of the delivery station/merchant
server, where it arrives, unmodified (FF 11).
Claim 55
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Davis and Vazvan,
and recites in pertinent part sending the receipt data to the client device and
the vending delivery station from the vending server.
Appellant submits that neither Davis nor Vazvan disclose the
limitation because “the ‘acknowledgement message’ sent by the host
computer of Vazvan is not receipt data.” (Appeal Br. 15).
We are not persuaded by this argument, because, as found supra,
Davis discloses receipt data, in the form of “debit result C” and “debit result
M” messages (FF 2, 3), which are sent from the vending server/payment
Appeal 2010-004259
Application 10/296,991
12
server 206 (FF 1) to the mobile device/client terminal 208 (FF 4). Then the
mobile device/client terminal sends the “debit result M” message to the
delivery station/merchant computer 208 (FF 5). Davis therefore discloses
the claim limitation by sending both receipt data messages to the mobile
device/client terminal, with one further routed to the delivery
station/merchant computer for enabling delivery. Since we find that Davis
discloses this feature, Vazvan is deemed cumulative.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 47-54, 56-58, 60-64, 66,
67, 69-73, 75-82, and 86-90 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Davis.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 55 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Davis and Vazvan.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 68 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Davis and Kingdon.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 83 and 85 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Davis and Takayama.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 59, 65, 74, 84, 91, and 92
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Davis and Webb.

DECISION
The rejections of claims 47-80 and 82-92 are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

Appeal 2010-004259
Application 10/296,991
13
AFFIRMED

mev

Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte NC 28280-4000