11269752 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2011)

Ex Parte Larsen

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 28, 2011

11269752 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte CHRISTIAN P. LARSEN ____________ Appeal 2010-001414 Application 11/269,752 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, 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 2010-001414 Application 11/269,752 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1 to 10, 12 to 16, and 18 to 37. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND Appellant’s invention is directed to method and system for preventing identity theft and providing credit independent completion of transactions. (Spec., para. [0001]). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for providing a payment mechanism for an account, the method comprising: associating an address with the account; assigning a unique identifier to the account; receiving a funding amount associated with the account, wherein the funding amount is defined by a user of the account; and providing the payment mechanism associated with the account, wherein the payment mechanism does not include a user identifier. Appellant appeals the following rejections: Claims 1 to 10, 12, 16, and 18 to 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Tarbutton (US Pub. 2001/0037290 A1, pub. Nov. 1, 2001); Claims 13 to 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tarbutton in view of Ray (US Pat. 5,321,751, iss. Jun. 14, 1994). Appeal 2010-001414 Application 11/269,752 3 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Tarbutton does not discloses providing the payment mechanism associated with the account, wherein the payment mechanism does not include a user identifier? FACTUAL FINDINGS We adopt all of the Examiner’s findings as our own. (Ans. 1 to 2; 18 to 19). ANALYSIS Anticipation The Appellant's argument that Tarbutton does not disclose a payment mechanism that does not include a user identifier is not persuasive of error by the Examiner. We agree with the Examiner that Tarbutton discloses a method for conducting anonymous purchasing transactions (para. [0005]), and that the method of Tarbutton does not include a user identifier. Tarbutton discloses that the card is provided with an anonymous name such as a random sequence of alphanumeric characters (para. [0006]). The anonymous name does not establish that the card includes a user identifier because the anonymous first and last name does not identify the user. Although the Appellant is correct that a card holder can contact the card issuer to assign a delivery address to the card (para. [0008]), Tarbutton does not establish that this assignment necessarily takes place. By stating that the card holder can assign an address, Tarbutton teaches that a card holder can choose not to assign an address. In any case, Tarbutton further discloses (para. [0023]) that the card holder can assign any address including a post Appeal 2010-001414 Application 11/269,752 4 office box or a third party receiving agent so as to protect the privacy of the user. As such, the assignment of a receiving address need not identify the user. We find no basis in the Tarbutton disclosure to substantiate the argument of Appellant that the actual name of the card holder is stored in memory on a data repository. There is simply no disclosure in Tarbutton to this effect. In view of the above, we find that Tarbutton does disclose a payment mechanism that does not include a user identifier. As such, we will sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 1. We will likewise sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 2 to 10, 12, 16, and 18 to 37 because the Appellant has not argued the separate patentability of these claims. Obviousness Appellant relies on the arguments made in response to the anticipation rejection to address the obviousness rejection and therefore we will affirm this rejection as to claims 13 to 15 for the same reasons given above. DECISION The decision of the Examiner 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED Appeal 2010-001414 Application 11/269,752 5 hh ARENT FOX LLP 1050 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, DC 20036