Google LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 30, 2021

2021001222 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2021)

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.
15/446,990 03/01/2017 Sashikanth Chandrasekaran GGLC-473 4725
100462 7590 07/30/2021
Dority & Manning P.A. and Google LLC
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
EXAMINER
DEGA, MURALI K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2021 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):
usdocketing@dority-manning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SASHIKANTH CHANDRASEKARAN,
TIMOTHY RAYMOND ZWIEBEL, and
YILEI WANG

Appeal 2021-001222
Application 15/446,990
Technology Center 3600

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 4–6, and 21–32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2002).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Google, LLC, as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-001222
Application 15/446,990

2
THE INVENTION
The claimed subject matter “relates to improving user convenience in
processing service requests by identifying user accounts for use in service
requests based on facial recognition of users by an account management
system.” (Spec. para. 2). Independent claims 1 and 24 are illustrative, and
are reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method to process payment
transactions using facial recognition, comprising:
by a payment processing system:
storing a first facial template in association with a user
account;
receiving, from a user computing device associated with
the user account, first location data;
determining, based on the received first location data that
the user computing device is at a merchant location;
in response to determining that the user computing
device is at the merchant location, adding the first facial
template to a current customer log associated with the merchant
location;
in response to receiving a payment transaction request,
generating, at a point of sale computing system, a second facial
template of a user at the merchant location;
comparing the second facial template to one or more
facial templates in the current customer log;
processing the payment transaction based on the
comparing.
24. A computer-implemented method to process transactions
with facial recognition of users, comprising:
by a payment processing system:
receiving, from a user computing device associated with
a user account, first location data;
Appeal 2021-001222
Application 15/446,990

3
determining that the first location data corresponds to a
merchant location;
transmitting, to a point of sale computing system
associated with the merchant location, a user facial template
corresponding to the user account and first instructions to add
the user facial template to a current customer log associated
with the merchant location;
receiving, from the point of sale computing system, an
identification of the user account and a request to process a
payment transaction;
processing the payment transaction based on account data
associated with the user account.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Dorogusker US 9,519,901 B1 Dec. 13, 2016
Lloyd US 2017/0091765 A1 Mar. 30, 2017

THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 4–6, and 21–32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dorogusker and Lloyd.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner’s position is that Dorogusker discloses all that is
claimed but for the “use of location information” (Final Act. 6), for which
Lloyd is relied upon.
Claim 1 calls for “adding [a] first facial template to a current customer
log associated with the merchant location,” where the merchant location is

Appeal 2021-001222
Application 15/446,990

4
“based on the received first location data that the user computing device is at
a merchant location.” Emphasis added.
According to the Examiner, “Lloyd teaches adding, by the one or
more computing devices, a user facial template associated with the user
account identified by the user account identifier to a log of current customers
at the location.” Final Act. 6–7 (citing para. 6 of Lloyd). But the claim calls
for using location data of the user computing device at a merchant location
to base the merchant location on, not simply a log of current customers at the
location.
The Examiner next points to these two sentences in paragraph 44 of
Lloyd (for the payment transaction limitation) which provide more context
about how Lloyd determines the location of a user device: “the location of a
user device may be determined and compared to the location of the merchant
associated with the transaction. The location of the user may be determined
continuously and user location history may be generated.”
Appellant argues that the references do not disclose “adding the first
facial template to a current customer log associated with the merchant
location ‘in response to determining that the user computing device is at
the merchant location.’” Appeal Br. 5. We agree.
The paragraph from which said two sentences were taken confirms
that Lloyd does not disclose using location data of the user device “at a
merchant location” as claimed. The difficulty with these two sentences is
that they do not in fact state that the merchant location is “based on the
received first location data that the user computing device is at a merchant
location” as claimed. Emphasis added. Lloyd explains in said paragraph that
the location of the user device “may be determined by retrieving global
Appeal 2021-001222
Application 15/446,990

5
positioning data from a user device” but that some of the approaches to
accomplishing that — such as “analyzing audio-visual data received from
[a] user device” may be too “intrusive.” Lloyd eliminates privacy concerns
by “authenticating the user without requiring the actual location coordinates
of the user or the user device and without monitoring and tracking the user
location by GPS and other intrusive means.” Emphasis added. To do that,
Lloyd describes, inter alia, authenticating “the user location relative to a
landmark location, for example, the location of the associated merchant,
without requiring additional infrastructure for location determination such as
transmitter devices at the landmark location.” Lloyd para. 44. Emphasis
added. Accordingly, Lloyd discloses using location data relative the
merchant location, not “at the merchant location” as claimed.
Since Lloyd does not disclose using location data at the merchant
location as claimed and why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
nevertheless led to do so given Lloyd’s disclosure of using location data
“relative” but not “at” a merchant location is not explained, a prima facie
case of obviousness for the claimed subject matter of claim 1, and claims 4–
6 and 21–23 dependent thereon is not made out in the first instance. For that
reason, the rejection of these claims for obviousness vis-a-vis Dorogusker
and Lloyd as the Examiner has presented it is not sustained.
Claim 24
The Appellant argued claims 24, 25, and 27–32 as a group. See
Appeal Br. 7–12. We select claim 24 as the representative claim for this
group, and the remaining claims 25 and 27–32 stand or fall with claim 24.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
The Examiner’s position with respect to independent claim 24 is the
Appeal 2021-001222
Application 15/446,990

6
same as that for claim 1. Final Act. 3.
Appellant’s arguments are also the same. Appeal Br. 7.
Claim 24 is, however, different from claim 1 in that it calls for using
location data that “corresponds to a merchant location” and “add[s] the user
facial template to a current customer log associated with the merchant
location.” Emphasis added. Appellant is incorrect in characterizing claim 24
as requiring “determining that the user computing device is at the merchant
location.” Appeal Br. 7. Relying on the arguments challenging the rejection
of claim 1 are also not helpful because they focus on the claim 1 step of
“determining that the user computing device is at the merchant location.”
Claim 24 does not require that.
In more broadly calling for using location data that “corresponds to a
merchant location” (emphasis added), claim 24 is reasonably broadly
construed as describing location data “similar, analogous, or equal”2 to a
merchant location. In that regard, the Examiner’s position that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use location data “similar,
analogous, or equal” to a merchant location given Lloyd’s disclosure of
using location data “relative” to the merchant location is a stronger one.
Appellant’s position which relies on the arguments challenging the rejection
of claim 1 (“at a merchant location”) is unpersuasive as to error in the
rejection of claim 24 because it is not commensurate in scope with what is
claimed.
For that reason, the rejection of claim 24, and claims 25, and 27–32

2 Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Ed. 312 (1988) (Simon &
Schuster, Inc.), entry 2. for “correspond” (“2. to be similar, analogous, or
equal (to something)”).
Appeal 2021-001222
Application 15/446,990

7
depending therefrom is sustained.
Claim 26
Appellant separately argues claim 26. Appeal Br. 7–8.
Dependent claim 26 further limits the point of sale computing system
of claim 24 to “stor[ing] the current customer log on the point of sale
computing system.” Emphasis added.
The Examiner cited column 4, lines 1–5 of Dorogusker which
discloses:
Instead of locally storing the digital signatures, the card
reader can store the registered biometric instruments on a server
accessible via local area network, or even to a remote server to
allow merchants from various locations to access the biometric
instrument.
According to Appellant, said passage “explicitly states that the
‘registered biometric instruments,’ (cited as the current customer log) are
stored at locations that are remote from the card reader (cited as the point of
sale computing system).” Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). We do not read
it that way.
While said passage does use the word “[i]nstead,” thereby contrasting
locally storing with storing on a server, the passage does not however
foreclose the possibility of locally storing the information. By indicating that
the registered biometric instruments “can” be stored remotely, the passage
presents two alternatives — locally or remotely storing the information.
Accordingly we are unpersuaded that Dorogusker fails to disclose or suggest
“the point of sale computing system stores the current customer log on the
point of sale computing system.”
Appellant also argues that Dorogusker recites “deleting the biometric
characteristic from the POS terminal when the digital signature is
Appeal 2021-001222
Application 15/446,990

8
generated.” Id. at 8 (see Dorogusker claim 9). Appellant points out that
“[t]he Office Action cites ‘registered biometric instruments’ as the current
customer log.” Id. According to Appellant, “Dorogusker’s recitation of
deleting the biometric characteristic from the POS terminal fails to disclose
‘the point of sale computing system stores the current customer log on the
point of sale computing system,’ as recited by dependent claim 26.” Id.
(emphasis omitted). But the fact that the biometric characteristic can been
deleted from the POS terminal once the digital signature is generated does
not suggest the biometric characteristic was not stored on the POS terminal.
Rather, it suggests that the biometric characteristic residing on the POS
terminal may be deleted once the digital signature is generated.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument as to error
in the rejection of claim 26.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–6, 21–
32
103(a) Dorogusker, Lloyd 24–32 1, 4–6, 21–
23
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED IN PART