Ex Parte Hodges

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

12904217 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/904,217 10/14/2010
826 7590 03/02/2016
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard Lance Hodges
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.
054624/389775 5457
EXAMINER
CAMPEN, KELLY SCAGGS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD LANCE HODGES
Appeal2013-010058
Application 12/904,217
Technology Center 3600
Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2013-010058
Application 12/904,217
Appellant's invention is "directed to a gateway for processing
purchase requests typically originating from a website." (Spec. para. 1 ).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A gateway system for processing payment related requests
associated with a wireless user comprising:
a processor configured to perform the steps of:
receive at a first interface from a source a first
charge request message requesting a charge operation to an
account associated with a wireless user, said first charge request
message comprising a first Hypertext Transfer Protocol
formatted message comprising an identifier associated with said
wireless user and a charge amount;
generate at a second interface to a mobile operator
a first Global System for Mobile Communications based
request message comprising a first Unstructured Supplementary
Service Data message requesting said charge operation and
indicating said charge amount, said first Global System for
Mobile Communications based request message comprising an
International Mobile Subscriber Identity associated with said
wireless user, wherein said mobile operator carries out said
charge operation to said account for said charge amount;
receive at said second interface a first Global
System for Mobile Communications based response message
comprising a second Unstructured Supplementary Service Data
message received in response to said first Global System for
Mobile Communications based request message, wherein said
first Global System for Mobile Communications based response
message confirms said charge operation to said account by said
mobile operator; and
generate at said first interface a first charge
response message to said source comprising a second Hypertext
Transfer Protocol formatted message confirming said charge
operation to said account by said mobile operator.
(Appeal Br., Claims App.)
2
Appeal2013-010058
Application 12/904,217
Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brody (US 2010/0293065 Al, pub. Nov, 18, 2010).
ANALYSIS
Each of independent claims 1, 8, and 16 recites language substantially
identical to generating by said processor "at a second interface to a mobile
operator a first Global System for Mobile Communications based request
message comprising a first Unstructured Supplementary Service Data
message requesting said charge operation and indicating said charge
amount."
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that Brody does not
disclose sending a Unstructured Supplementary Service Data ("USSD")
request message from a payment gateway to a mobile operator of a user'
mobile phone account to request that a charge operation be carried out on the
user's account. (Appeal Br. 7-17, see also Reply Br. 2-5).
In rejecting the disputed limitation above, the Examiner finds the
language disclosed in Brody at Figures 2A and 2B, and paragraphs 7, 33,
and 38. (Final Act. 3).
Brody's Figures 2A and 2B disclose a flow chart for a user to
purchase goods and services at a merchant and charge either a pre-paid or
post-paid mobile telephone account for the purchase payment. Figure 2B
indicates that a "clearinghouse" is used to contact a cell provider, using a
message in "TAP" format. (Figure 2B).
Brody's Paragraph 7 discloses charging a user's cell phone account
"in the manner of a roaming service provider." (Para. 7). This paragraph
3
Appeal2013-010058
Application 12/904,217
also discloses that a clearinghouse may be utilized instead of direct contact
with a cell provider. (Id.). Paragraph 33 describes the process of a merchant
system requesting information about the purchasing cell user from a
clearinghouse. (Para. 33). Paragraph 38 describes aspects of limits on the
disclosed method depending on histories of chargebacks to reverse charges
in the past. (Para. 38).
Brody discloses a process that is similar to the claimed invention, in
the sense that it attempts to pay for purchased goods and services using a
charge to a cell phone account. In contrast, though, Brody does not disclose
at these cited locations that a USSD message is sent to a mobile provider, as
claimed. Rather, Brody appears to disclose that a TAP (Transferred Account
Procedure) formatted file is sent to a mobile operator, who may create a Call
Detail Record (CDR) to initiate charges to an account, via a clearinghouse.
(Paras. 70, 71 ).
From the cited sections, it initially appears that the Examiner is
finding the claimed gateway at the disclosed clearinghouse in Brody.
However, in the Response to Argument, the Examiner asserts that the
gateway is actually the user's own cell phone. (Answer 4). Although we
offer no opinion on whether this is a valid argument, because of a lack of
evidence before us, we are able to conclude that none of the cited sections in
Brody discloses a payment arrangement using the user's cell phone as a
gateway to communicate a charge request to a cell provider via a US SD
message, as claimed.
For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims
1, 8, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Brody. We also do not sustain
4
Appeal2013-010058
Application 12/904,217
the rejection of dependent claims 2-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-20 that are
rejected along with the independent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
REVERSED
5