Fisher, Michelle

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2020

2019003843 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2020)

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.
14/253,648 04/15/2014 Michelle Fisher BLZMP004C52 6127
12120 7590 05/13/2020
Michelle Fisher
2930 Domingo Ave
Suite 123
Berkeley, CA 94705
EXAMINER
GOYEA, OLUSEGUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2020 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):
mfisher@blazemobile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte MICHELLE FISHER1
_____________

Appeal 2019-003843
Application 14/253,648
Technology Center 3600
______________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, JASON J. CHUNG, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 11, 20–27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 42, 43, 46, 47, 51, 52 and 54–
67, as numbered by the Examiner, are pending, stand rejected, are appealed, and
are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction
over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicants” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). The Appeal Brief identifies the inventor, Michelle Fisher, the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appellant argues pro se. See Appeal Br. 41.
Appeal 2019-003843
Application 14/253,648

2

Claims on Appeal
Appellant states the:
The application was originally filed with claims 1–20. Claims 1–20
remain pending and all stand rejected and this is an appeal of
rejected Claims 1-20. Claims 2–10 and 12–19 have been cancelled
and replaced by new claims 21–27, 29–30, 32–33, 37–38, 42–43,
46–47, 51–52, and 54–67. Claims 1–67 are reproduced and attached
in the Claims Appendix.
Appeal Br. 2 (Section III STATUS OF THE CLAIMS).
The Examiner finds:
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed
02/06/2018. Currently, claims 1, 11, 20–27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38,
42, 43, 46, 47, 51, 52 and 54–67 are pending. Claims 1, 11, 20, 29,
32, 38, 47, 52, 54, 56, 58, 61, 63 and 65 have been amended.
Claims 2–10, 12–19, 28, 31, 34–36, 39–41, 44, 45, 48–50 and 53
have been cancelled.

Final Act. 2–3 (Status of Claims).
We adopt the Examiner’s numbering of the claims.

RELATED APPEALS AND TRIALS
Appellant declares the present Application is related to the Appeal of US
Patent Application No. 15/076,578 (the “’578 Application”). Appeal Br. 2.
The present Panel of the Board heard the appeal of the ’578 Application in
Appeal 2019-000039 wherein we Reversed the rejection of all pending claims.

Appeal 2019-003843
Application 14/253,648

3

INVENTION
Summary of the Invention
The invention is directed to a “method and system for receiving digital
artifacts from a management server.” See Abstract.
Claims
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below with
formatting added for clarity:
1. A method for processing a transaction, comprising:
receiving, at a transaction server, a payment method that
corresponds to an identification code associated with a user from a
remote management server, wherein prior to receiving the payment
method that corresponds to the identification code associated with
the user from the remote management server, the remote
management server sends a list of products to a non-browser based
application generated screen generated by a non-browser based
application with a graphical user interface that is downloaded and
installed on a mobile device for display with a mobile device display
of the mobile device, wherein the non-browser based application
only generates a non-browser based application generated screen,
the non-browser based application generated screen corresponding
to a specific screen or area of the non-browser based application, the
mobile device including the mobile device display, a mobile device
processor, a mobile device wireless radio transceiver configured to
support voice and data interactions through a first wireless
communication channel, and a mobile device wireless fidelity (Wi-
Fi) transceiver,
receives, at the non-browser based application generated screen, an
identification of one or more products selected from the list of
products from the non-browser based application generated screen,
wherein the non-browser based application generated screen
receives the identification of the one or more products selected from
the list of products through user input via the mobile device display;
Appeal 2019-003843
Application 14/253,648

4

receives a transaction purchase request from a user from the non-
browser based application generated screen, wherein the non-
browser based application generated screen receives the transaction
purchase request via the mobile device display of the mobile device;
receives user input login information including an identification
code associated with the user from the non-browser based
application generated screen, wherein the non-browser based
application generated screen stored on the mobile device receives
the user input login information via a mobile device display of the
mobile device;
upon receipt of the user input login information, authenticating, at
the remote management server, the user associated with the user
input login information;
transmits the payment method that corresponds to the identification
code associated with the user to the transaction server; and
processing, at the transaction server, the transaction using the
payment method; and
sending, from the transaction server, a transaction verification to the
remote management server, wherein the transaction verification
indicates that the transaction has processed and further wherein after
receiving the transaction verification, the remote management server
downloads the one or more products to the mobile device.

Appeal 2019-003843
Application 14/253,648

5

REJECTIONS2 AT ISSUE3
References
Name Publication Number Date
Gobburu US 2002/0060246 A1 May 23, 2002
Clisham US 2004/0168052 A1 Aug. 26, 2004
Gautier US 2005/0021478 A1 Jan. 27, 2005
Yan US 2005/0240484 A1 Oct. 27, 2005
Tevanian, Jr. US 2006/0100924 A1 May 11, 2006
Roever US 2006/0170759 A1 Aug. 3, 2006
Hotelling US 2006/0235864 A1 Oct. 19, 2006
Rackley US 2008/0010191 A1 Jan. 10, 2008

Rejections
1. The rejection of claims 58 and 65 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement
was withdrawn. See Final Act. 4–6; see also Advisory Action (mailed
May 10, 2018).

2 The Application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Final Act. 2.
3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed August 21, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief filed April 15, 2019 (“Reply Br.”); the Final
Office Action mailed February 23, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer
mailed March 14, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Specification filed February 6, 2018,
(“Spec.”).
Appeal 2019-003843
Application 14/253,648

6

2. Claims 1, 11, 20–27, 32, 36–39, 41–48, 50–55, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, and 664
stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Rackley, Gautier, and Hotelling. Final Act. 7–16.
3. Claims 29, 30, and 33 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling, and Tevanian. Final
Act. 16–17.
4. Claims 56 and 63 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling, and Roever. Final Act. 17–
18.
5. Claims 57 and 64 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling, and Roever. Final Act. 18–
19.
6. Claims 60 and 67 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling, and Clisham. Final Act.
19–21.
ANALYSIS

We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s
rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s
arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s written description
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, 11, 13–16, 20–24, and 28–45 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.

4 Claims 1, 11, 20–27, 36, 37, 39, 41–46, 48, and 50–53 are recited both in the
header and the body of the rejection. Claims 32, 38, 47, 54, 55, 58, 59, 61, 62,
65, and 66 are not recited in the header, but are discussed in the body of the
rejection. See Final Act. 12–16
Appeal 2019-003843
Application 14/253,648

7

CLAIMS 1, 11, 20–27, 32, 36–39, 41–48, 50–55, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, AND 66:
OBVIOUSNESS OVER RACKLEY, GAUTIER, AND HOTELLING

Appellant argues all claims as a group in view of the limitations of claim 1.
See Appeal Br. 42. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the section 103 rejections
on the basis of illustrative claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively
herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant contends the combination of Rackley, Gautier, and Hotelling
fails to teach each element of claim 1. Appeal Br. 15.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “maintaining a non-browser based application
in a mobile device memory.” Claim 1 further recites various steps of “receiving,
at the non-browser based application” and “sending from the non-browser based
application.”
The Examiner finds Rackley teaches, inter alia, “a non-browser based
application with a graphical user interface that is downloaded and installed on a
mobile device.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds Gautier teaches: “the remote
management server, sends a list of products to a non-browser based application
generated screen generated by a non-browser based application.” Final Act. 10.
The Examiner does not apply Hoteling to teach a non-browser based application.
Final Act. 10–11.
The present Application is related to the Appeal of US Patent Application
No. 15/076,578 (the “’578 Application”). Appeal Br. 2. The present Panel of the
Board heard the appeal of the ’578 Application in Appeal 2019-000039 wherein
the issue of “receiving, at the non-browser based application” and “sending from
the non-browser based application” was presented in view of the present Rackley,
Gautier, and Hoteling references. Contrary to the Examiner, in both the prior
Appeal 2019-003843
Application 14/253,648

8

’578, and present ’648 Application, we find each of Rackley, Gautier, and
Hotelling teach a browser-based application.
Rackley teaches “payee information is input by the user via the Internet-
accessible web site” and “[m]obile devices include such items as cellphones and
PDAs that are connected for data communications via a wireless network to an
MFTS.” Rackley ¶¶ 35, 128. Rackley also teaches “[t]he MFTS is in turn
connected to allow remote network access (e.g. Internet access) by users for
account setup, configuration, editing, monitoring of transactions, etc.” Id. ¶ 128.
Moreover, Rackley explicitly teaches browser-based user access:
[a] user interface provides a means of input (allowing a user to send
information to a system such as the MFTS) and a means of output
(allowing the MFTS system to display information to the user).
These inputs and outputs are transported via the Internet and viewed
by the users using a web browser program such as Netscape
Navigator, Internet Explorer, Firefox, or any other web browsers.
Rackley ¶ 164.
Similarly, Gautier teaches:
the media player 108 can utilize an improved graphical user
interface. More particularly, in one embodiment, a window
presented on a display device of the client 104, when executing the
media player 108, includes an upper window that displays content
provided by the media commerce server 102 in a browser-like
manner, and a lower window displays content provided by the media
commerce server 102 in a typical media player-like manner.
Gautier ¶ 54.

Gautier further teaches:
A network-based media purchase system as recited in claim 25,
wherein the first window displays first information provided
remotely by said media commerce server in a browser-like manner,
Appeal 2019-003843
Application 14/253,648

9

and wherein the second window displays second information in an
application-like manner, the second information being provided
locally by the client media player program operating on the
corresponding client machine or being provided remotely by said
media commerce server.
Gautier 16 (Claim 26). Hotelling provides similar disclosure: “the music
identification service typically also stores the information sent to the mobile
phone on-line, which the user may access through a web browser.” Hotelling,
¶ 7. Hotelling further discloses: “[a] user can interact with the GUI elements to
browse digital media assets that are available on a remote server for purchase,
download.” Hotelling ¶ 56.
Thus we find, contrary to the claims, that each of Gautier, Rackley, and
Hotelling teaches that a user interacts with the referenced servers using a
browser-based application.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 11, 20–27,
32, 36–39,
41–48, 50–
55, 58, 59,
61, 62, 65,
66

103 Rackley, Gautier,
Hotelling
1, 11, 20–27, 32, 36–
39, 41–48, 50–55,
58, 59, 61, 62, 65, 66
29, 30, 33 103 Rackley, Gautier,
Hotelling,
Tevanian

29, 30, 33
Appeal 2019-003843
Application 14/253,648

10

56, 63 103 Rackley, Gautier,
Hotelling, Roever

56, 63
57, 64 103 Rackley, Gautier,
Hotelling, Roever

57, 64
60, 67 103 Rackley, Gautier,
Hotelling, Clisham
60, 67
Overall
Outcome
1, 11, 20–27, 29, 30,
32, 33, 37, 38, 42,
43, 46, 47, 51, 52
and 54–67

REVERSED