Ex Parte ReismanDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 23, 201612893246 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/893,246 09/29/2010 105758 7590 06/27/2016 Renaissance IP Law Group LLP (Portland - North) 7327 SW Barnes Road #521 Portland, OR 97225 Richard R. Reisman 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. 47003/0029 3752 EXAMINER RASHID, HARUNUR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2497 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/27/2016 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): matthew. phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com docket. clerk@renaissanceiplaw.com PhillipsPatentLawyer@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD R. REISMAN Appeal2014-000548 Application 12/893,246 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 13-15, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2014-000548 Application 12/893,246 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The present invention relates to providing services from a remote computer system to a user station over a communications network. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 13 is exemplary: 13. A computer implemented method, comprising: during a first user-initiated communications session: receiving at a remote computer system over a communications network first information for a user station not previously identified to the remote computer system from the user station for storage remote from the user station, wherein the user station and the remote computer system are distinct; providing second information from the remote computer system to the user station for automatic storage at the user station; creating an association at the remote computer system between the second information and the first information; and using at the remote computer system the first information when processing a first purchase transaction; and during a second user-initiated communications session subsequent to and separate from the first user=initiated communications session: receiving at the remote computer system the second information automatically accessed on the user station; and accessing the stored first information using the remote computer system and the received second information when processing a subsequent purchase transaction associated with the second user-initiated communications session; wherein the second information is used by the remote computer system as a surrogate for a user identifier, and wherein the surrogate for the user identifier may not be used to authenticate a user of the user station. Mc Calley Kaplan References and Rejections us 5, 191,410 us 5,237,157 2 Mar. 2, 1993 Aug. 17, 1993 Appeal2014-000548 Application 12/893,246 Loucks Johnson us 5,481,720 us 5,560,008 Jan.2, 1996 Sept. 24, 1996 Claims 13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Johnson, Kaplan, and McCalley. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Johnson, Kaplan, McCalley, and Loucks. 1 ANALYSIS The Obviousness Rejections On this record, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13. We disagree with Appellant's arguments, and agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below. Therefore, we provide the following points. Appellant contends Johnson and Kaplan do not collectively teach "receiving at a remote computer system over a communications network first information for a user station not previously identified to the remote computer system from the user station for storage remote from the user station," as recited in claim 13 (emphasis added). See App. Br. 6-17; Reply Br. 1-8. In particular, Appellant asserts "[t]he absence of a credentials id in Johnson does not mean that a user station was not previously identified." App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 3--4. Appellant contends Johnson's credentials ID is for a user, not a user station. See App. Br. 12-13; Reply 1 The Examiner withdrew a double patenting rejection. See Ans. 3. 3 Appeal2014-000548 Application 12/893,246 Br. 7-8. Appellant argues Kaplan's "users of the kiosk are already known." App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 6-7.2 Appellant has not persuaded us of error. The Examiner finds-and Appellant does not dispute-Johnson teaches the claimed "user station" (mapped to Johnson's user machine) and the claimed "remote system" (mapped to Johnson's server system). See Ans. 6. The Examiner finds "initially user is unknown to the remote server machine as disclosed by Kaplan (user is unknown to the remote server, so the user needs to complete a membership application; col. 5, lines 30-35)." Ans. 9. Therefore, the Examiner finds the claim limitation "not previously identified to the[] system" is taught by or obvious in light of Kaplan's teachings. See Ans. 9. Appellant fails to squarely respond to the Examiner's above findings, and fails to critique the Kaplan portion cited by the Examiner. Therefore, Appellant fails to show error in the Examiner's above findings. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art."). Further, the Examiner's findings are reasonable. The Examiner correctly finds because the user needs to complete a membership application, the user is not previously identified to the system in Kaplan. See Ans. 9. 2 To the extent Appellant advances new arguments in the Reply Brief without showing good cause, Appellant has waived such arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). 4 Appeal2014-000548 Application 12/893,246 As a result, the Examiner reasonably finds "a user station not previously identified to the remote computer system" is taught by or obvious in light of the collectively teachings of Johnson and Kaplan. See Ans. 9. Because Appellant does not contend it is improper to combine the teachings of Johnson and Kaplan for the disputed claim limitation, Appellant fails to show the Examiner's rejection is unreasonable. 3 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13. For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 14 and 15. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 13-15. 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 )(iv). AFFIRMED 3 The Examiner cumulatively finds the italicized claim limitation is taught by or obvious in light of Johnson's teachings. That cumulative finding is unnecessary because, as discussed above, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's rejection based on the collective teachings of Johnson and Kaplan. 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation