Ex Parte Paquin et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 20, 2019

13233045 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/233,045 09/15/2011
69316 7590 06/24/2019
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christian Paquin
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.
333289-US-NP 6357
EXAMINER
WINTER, JOHN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2019 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte CHRISTIAN PAQUIN, ARIEL GORDON, and
MELISSA CHASE 1
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
Technology Center 3600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, SHARON PENICK, and
RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-8 and 22. App. Br. 2. These claims stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter and under § 103 as being unpatentable. Final Action mailed June 5,
2017 ("Final Act."), 3-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC as the real party
in interest. Appeal Brief filed October 24, 2017 ("App. Br."), 2.
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
THE INVENTION
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
The claimed subject matter provides a system and method
for enabling paid-for exchange of identity attributes with
minimal disclosure credentials. An exemplary method includes
requesting a credential from an identity provider by one of a user
or a credential agent. The credential may be presented to a
relying party, and the presented credential may be verified.
Based on verification of the presented credential, a service of the
relying party may be accessed by the user. The user, the relying
party, a neutral third party, or the credential agent may provide
payment for the credential to the identity provider, and the
identity provider is unable to determine whether, where, when or
by whom the credential has been used.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with formatting modified for
clarity and with emphasis added to indicate that portion of the claim that
recites more than an abstract idea, illustrates the claimed invention:
1. A method for enabling exchange of identity attributes with
minimal disclosure credentials, comprising:
[i] receiving a request for a credential from a user or a
credential agent;
[ii] generating the credential, the credential comprising an
encrypted attribute of the user;
[iii] presenting the credential to the user or the credential agent;
[iv] verifying the presented credential to enable the user to
access a service from a relying party, the presented credential
preventing an identity provider from transmitting to the relying
party an additional attribute corresponding to the user;
[ v] detecting usage statistics corresponding to the presented
credential, the usage statistics indicating a number of times the
user accessed the service from the relying party with the
presented credential; and
2
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
[ vi] limiting a number of transactions to be verified with the
presented credential, wherein the limit is based on a counter
stored on a device.
App. Br. 18, Claims App'x.
A. SECTION 101
THE§ 101 REJECTION
Principles of Law
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and
Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at217-18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75-77). In
accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim
is "directed to." See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims
before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use
of a third party to mitigate settlement risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561
U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners' application explain the
basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
3
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981) ); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267---68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 ("We
view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting
to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment."
Id. ( citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now commonplace
that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. "A claim that recites an
4
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id.
(alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). "[M]erely
requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform that
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id.
B. US PTO SECTION 101 GUIDANCE
The United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") recently
published revised guidance on the application of§ 101. US PTO,
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84. Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) ("2019 Guidance"). Under the 2019 Guidance, we first look
to whether the claim recites the following:
( 1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
"well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
5
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Analysis
STEP 2A, PRONG 1:
The limitations of claim 1 reasonably can be characterized as reciting
various abstract ideas, as explained below:
The preamble of claim 1 recites "[a] method for enabling exchange of
identity attributes with minimal disclosure credentials, comprising."
Notably, the preamble does not require that the method be performed on a
computer or otherwise recite what kind of entity is performing the ensuing
method steps of receiving, generating, presenting, verifying, detecting, and
limiting. As such, claim 1 is written broadly enough to read on the ensuing
steps being performed by a human.
Limitation [i] recites "receiving a request for a credential from a user
or a credential agent." Appellants' Specification indicates that "a user" can
be a person. E.g., Spec. ,r 1 ("a user may need to prove that he or she is over
the age of twenty-one to access an online casino over the internet"). The
Specification further indicates that "a credential agent" merely is an
intermediary performing a service, and, as such, not necessarily a
computerized agent. E.g., Spec. ,r 47 ("[a] credential agent is a service that
acts on behalf of users, replacing the local client"); ,r 48 ("in embodiments,
the relying party 604 pays the identity provider 610 directly, in which case
the credential agent 606 is merely a protocol intermediary"); id. ,r 49
6
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
(reciting "consider a cloud hosted credential agent," thereby indicating that a
credential agent can be hosted on a cloud, but that the mere recitation of a
credential agent per se does not necessarily require the use of a computer).
Furthermore, even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that
the recited "credential agent" necessarily is limited to a computerized agent,
limitation [i] uses the disjunctive "or" to indicate that a request need be
received only for one of the user or the credential agent. As such,
limitation [i] is written broadly enough to read on a step of receiving a
request from a credential from a human user.
Receiving a request from a person reasonably can be characterized as
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Methods of managing such personal behavior, relationships, or interactions
fall within the category of "certain method of organizing human activity,"
which is one category of abstract ideas that is recognized by the
2019 Guidance. Receiving a request from a person alternatively can be
characterized as an observation that can be performed in the human mind.
Such concepts fall within the category of "mental processes"-another
category of abstract ideas that is recognized by the 2019 Guidance. As such,
limitation [i] reasonably can be characterized as reciting an abstract idea.
Limitation [ii] recites "generating the credential, the credential
comprising an encrypted attribute of the user." Limitation [ii] does not, in
any manner, limit what sort of encryption protocol is entailed. As such,
limitation [ii] is written broadly enough to read on an evaluation or judgment
that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Evaluations and judgments that can be performed in the human mind are
mental processes that the 2019 Guidance recognizes as abstract ideas.
7
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
Limitation [iii] recites "presenting the credential to the user or the
credential agent." Like limitation [i], limitation [iii] is broad enough to read
on a person orally conveying the credential to another human. Like
limitation [i], then, limitation [iii] reasonably can be characterized as a
method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people. As such, limitation [iii] reasonably can be characterized as
reciting one of the certain methods of organizing human activity that is
recognized by the 2019 Guidance as constituting an abstract idea.
Limitation [iv] recites "verifying the presented credential to enable the
user to access a service from a relying party, the presented credential
preventing an identity provider from transmitting to the relying party an
additional attribute corresponding to the user." As a threshold matter, the
latter clause of "the presented credential preventing an identity provider
from transmitting ... an additional attribute ... " ("the additional-attribute
clause") is directed to an intangible property of the data-a property of the
data that can only be known based on what a relying party independently
knows about the user. For example, a credential that only indicates that the
user has a credit score within a certain range may not provide additional
information about some users or provide additional information to some
relying parties. But the exact same information, at least theoretically, could
allow some other relying parties to identify the particular user-and, hence,
additional attributes. This could happen, for example, if the user is the only
listed person in a relying party's system who has a credit score within the
noted credit range. Because the latter clause is directed to an intangible
property of the data, the additional-attribute clause does not patentably
8
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
distinguish limitation [iv] further beyond the limitation's first clause, which
is discussed next. 2
The remainder of limitation [iv] merely recites "verifying the
presented credential to enable the user to access a service from a relying
party." The step of verifying the presented credential is broad enough to
read on an evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be performed in the
human mind or with the aid of a pencil and paper. As such, limitation [iv]
reasonably can be characterized as reciting a mental process-a recognized
abstract idea.
Moreover, even if we did give the "additional attribute" language
patentable weight, that language merely describes the presented information
in greater detail. As such, the limitation still reasonably would be
characterized as reciting a mental process. See SAP Am. In. v. InvestPic
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("even if a process of collecting
and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular
'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than
abstract").
Limitation [ v] recites "detecting usage statistics corresponding to the
presented credential, the usage statistics indicating a number of times the
user accessed the service from the relying party with the presented
credential." Limitation [ v] is drafted broadly enough to read on a mental
process entailing an observation or evaluation that is performed in the
2 Upon any further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether
affording patentable weight to this additional-attribute clause raises any
questions under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as to whether the metes and bounds of
claim protection being sought are reasonably ascertainable.
9
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
human mind or with the aid of a pencil and paper. As such, limitation [ v]
reasonably can be characterized as reciting an abstract idea.
Limitation [vi] recites "limiting a number of transactions to be
verified with the presented credential, wherein the limit is based on a counter
stored on a device." With the exception of the language of the wherein
clause, limitation [ vi] reasonably can be characterized as a step of managing
personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people, such as by
following rules or instructions. As such, the first clause of limitation [ v]
reasonably can be characterized as reciting a certain method of organizing
human activity that is recognized by the 2019 Guidance as constituting an
abstract idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2:
Pursuant to step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, we next inquire
whether the only additional element beyond the recited abstract idea-
"wherein the limit is based on a counter stored on a device"----considered
either individually or as an ordered combination in relation to the rest of
claim 1, integrates the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application.
See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55; see also MPEP §§ 2106.05(a}-
(c), (e}-(h).
Appellants argue as follows:
the present claim is directed to changing the operation of a
computing device. Specifically, the present claim recites
"limiting a number of transactions to be verified with the
presented credential, wherein the limit is based on a counter
stored on a device." The Appellants note that limiting a number
of transactions that can be verified with a credential is not the
same as using rules to identify options. Rather, the present
10
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
claims prevent computing devices from verifying a credential in
some instances.
App. Br. 9.
We see insufficient evidence that basing a limit on a counter that is
stored on a device, as claimed, either (i) improves the functioning of a
computer or any other technology, (ii) sets forth a particular machine or
transformation, or (iii) provides any other meaningful limitations. First of
all, Appellants' arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims
because the claims do not require that the recited abstract idea be performed
on a computer. The only recitation of any machine is "a counter stored on a
device." See claim 1.
Furthermore, claim 1 does not recite that the counter, itself, controls
or prevents transactions. Claim 1 merely recites that "the limit is based on"
the counter ( emphasis added). As such, the limitation is broad enough to
read on a human using a mechanical tally counter to track a number of
transactions that are to be verified. Mechanical tally counters, such as
handheld thumb-activated counters, long have been used to count the
number of people entering an event through a door or gate. That is, claim 1
is written broadly enough to read on such a human, who is tracking
transactions, limiting the number of transactions after observing that a
certain count on the tally counter has been reached.
In short, the recitation of basing a limit on a counter stored on a
device does not constitute an improvement to a technology. Using a
mechanical device, such as a mechanical tally counter, merely makes the
process of a human keeping track of a count, either mentally or with pencil
and paper, more efficient and reliable.
11
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
We also would reach the same conclusion even if we were to assume,
for the sake of argument, that the claimed counter was limited to computer
counters. "[M]ere automation of manual processes using generic computers
does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology."
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed.
Cir. 2017); see also 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 & n.30.
Appellants also argue that the claims improve the functioning of the
computer, improve another technology or technical field, and include
meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea
to a particular technological environment because "the present claims are
directed to enabling identity attributes with minimal disclosure credentials."
App. Br. 10. According to Appellants, "[t]his improvement in credential
verification can prevent the distribution of private user data." Id.
This argument is unpersuasive. These elements that Appellants argue
add significantly more to the recited abstract idea are themselves, in fact,
some of the claimed abstract ideas. "It has been clear since Alice that a
claimed invention's use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed
cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention 'significantly
more' than that ineligible concept." BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899
F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
STEP 2B:
We are persuaded by the Examiner's determination that the additional
claim element, viewed individually and in ordered combination with the rest
of claim 1, merely entails the use of well-understood, routine, and
conventional activity:
12
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing
that is not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually. There is no indication that the combination of
elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves
any other technology. The [elements'] collective functions
merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Final Act. 3.
Appellants' Specification, for example, supports the Examiner's
conclusion that the claimed functionalities can be carried out on various
types of general purpose computers:
those skilled in the art will appreciate that the subject innovation
may be practiced with other computer system configurations,
including single-processor or multiprocessor computer systems,
minicomputers, mainframe computers, as well as personal
computers, hand-held computing devices, microprocessor-based
and/or programmable consumer electronics, and the like, each of
which may operatively communicate with one or more
associated devices. The illustrated aspects of the claimed subject
matter may also be practiced in distributed computing
environments where certain tasks are performed by remote
processing devices that are linked through a communications
network. However, some, if not all, aspects of the subject
innovation may be practiced on stand-alone computers. In a
distributed computing environment, program modules may be
located in local and/ or remote memory storage devices.
Spec. ,r 54.
For these reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in determining that the claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter.
13
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
THE§ 103 REJECTION
The Rejection and Contentions
Claims 1-7 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Asay (US 5,903,882; issued May 11, 1999) in view of
Bromley (US 2010/01311765 Al; published May 27, 2010) and Ooban
(US 2005/0222950 Al; published October 6, 2005).
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Asay, Bromley, Ooban, and Vanderveen
(US 201/0190469 Al; published July 29, 2010).
The Examiner finds that Asay teaches all of the limitations of
independent claim 1 with two exceptions. First, the Examiner finds that
Bromley teaches "verifying the presented credential to enable the user to
access a service from a relying party, the presented credential preventing an
identity provider from transmitting to the relying party an additional
attribute corresponding to the user." Final Act. 6 ( citations omitted) ( citing
Bromley, Abstract, ,r 19, claim 1 ). The Examiner additionally determines
that motivation existed to combine Bromley's teachings with Asay's. Id.
Second, the Examiner finds that Ooban teaches
detecting usage statistics corresponding to the presented
credential, the usage statistics indicating a number of times the
user accessed the service from the relying party with the
presented credential; and limiting a number of transactions to be
verified with the presented credential, wherein the limit is based
on a counter stored on a device."
Id. at 6-7. The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to combine
Ooban' s teachings with Asay "in order to gather a statistical profile of usage
of a service." Id. at 7.
14
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
In reaching the determination of obviousness, the Examiner interprets
the claim language "limiting a number of transactions to be verified with the
presented credential" ("the transaction-limiting limitation") to be broad
enough to read on not only limiting the transactions based upon the number
of transactions undertaken, but also to read on limiting the transactions to the
extent that the user is prevented from engaging in additional transaction if
doing so would result in exceeding a credit limit: "Ooban discloses
techniques for managing the payment of a counter value from a payer to a
payee based on a credit limit associated with the counter value when the
credit limit is reached no further transactions can occur thus limiting the
number of transactions possible." Ans. 3 ( citing Ooban ,r 51 ).
The Examiner determines that this broad interpretation is reasonable
for the following reason:
the pre-paid transaction funds of Ooban are not patentably
distinct from the pre-paid counter as disclosed by the
Appellants['] specification because both seek to limit
transactions base on a pre-established value, and therefore a
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation of
"limiting a number of transactions to be verified with the
presented credential, wherein the limit is based on a counter
stored on a device" in view of the specification is taught by
Ooban.
Ans. 4.
Appellants agree with the Examiner "that Ooban describes setting a
credit limit based on an amount of a counter value." Reply Br. 4 ( citing
Ooban ,r 8). But Appellants argue that such a functionality does not
reasonably read on the claim language's requirement of limiting a number of
transactions. Id. ("Ooban does not limit a number of transactions based on a
counter. In fact, the counter value of Ooban may be reached with any
15
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
number of transactions depending on the money value associated with each
of the transactions").
Issue
Appellants' contentions present the following issue on appeal: does
the scope of the claim language, "limiting a number of transactions to be
verified with the presented credential, wherein the limit is based on a counter
stored on a device" include the step of limiting transactions based on a credit
limit, when the claim language is considered under the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with Appellants' Specification?
Findings of Fact
The record supports the following Findings of Fact by a
preponderance of the evidence:
Fact 1. Appellants' Specification contains the following disclosure:
In embodiments, the payment for the credentials may
occur on a per-transaction basis, where the relying party 104
contacts the identity provider 110 to verify each credential from
user 102. In other embodiments, the relying party may have a
subscription with the identity provider 110 and the identity
provider 110 may provide the relying party with a number of
keys that can be used to verify the credential without contacting
the identity provider. In embodiments, attributes within the
credentials may be encrypted for a particular relying party. If the
parts of the credential are encrypted, in embodiments, the
credential can be used with a particular authorized relying party
that has the key to unlock the contents of the credential. In
embodiments, the device 106 may contain a counter that allows
the user 104 to provide only a certain number of credentials from
the device 106.
Spec. ,r 33 ( emphasis added).
16
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
Fact 2. Appellants' Specification contains the following disclosure:
In embodiments, a user may present the credential after it
has been protected by a device, such as device 106, device 312,
or a device 410. Thus, the user may present the credential to the
relying party by satisfying additional security measures, which
may be provided by a device or a remote service. The device
may contain a counter, and may be pre-paid by the user or the
relying party. The counter can limit the number of transactions
the device can participate in, up to the value of the counter. The
device may also limit credentials to be presented to authorized
relying parties.
Spec. ,r 51 ( emphasis added).
Fact 3. Appellants' originally filed claim 10 reads as follows: "The
system recited in claim 9, comprising a counter on the storage device that
limits the number of times credentials can be presented to a relying party."
Analysis
We agree with Appellants that the broadest reasonable interpretation
of the disputed language of independent claim 1 does not encompass
counting how close the user is to a credit limit. Appellants' Specification
reasonably indicates that the disputed claim language is being employed
only to refer to an act of limiting the number of transactions based upon
counting the number of transactions that have occurred-not based on
counting how close the user is to a credit limit. See Facts 1-3. The
Examiner provides insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Appellants'
Specification envisioned using the counter alternatively to track a user's
credit balance. Thus, the Examiner provides insufficient evidence to support
the position that the disputed claim language reasonably encompasses the act
17
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
of limiting transactions based upon credit balances. See generally Final
Act.; see generally Ans.
The Examiner has not shown sufficiently that Ooban or the other
references relied on discloses a counter that is used to count a number of
times the user accessed the service, as claim 1 requires. Consequently, the
Examiner has failed to establish that the invention of claim 1 is obvious over
the prior art combination used in the rejection.
Conclusions
We do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1,
or of claims 2-7 and 22, which depend from claim 1. 3
With respect to the additional rejection of dependent claim 8, the
Examiner does not rely on the additional teachings of Vanderveen to cure
the deficiencies of the obviousness rejection of claim 1. See Final Act. 9-
10. Accordingly, we likewise do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 8 for the reasons set forth in relation to independent claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 22 is affirmed.
3 We note that it has long been a conventional practice of financial
institutions to limit the number of withdrawals per specified time period that
an account holder may make from certain types of accounts. Upon any
further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether this fact affects
the patentability of the claims.
18
Appeal2018-004966
Application 13/233,045
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
19