Google LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 12, 20212021003218 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/507,770 10/06/2014 Amir Fish GGLC-456 8616 100462 7590 08/12/2021 Dority & Manning P.A. and Google LLC Post Office Box 1449 Greenville, SC 29602 EXAMINER ROBINSON, KITO R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3619 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/12/2021 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 AMIR FISH ____________ Appeal 2021-003218 Application 14/507,770 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRETT C. MARTIN, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21–40.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google, LLC. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 1–20 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-003218 Application 14/507,770 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER “The present disclosure relates generally to determining the identity of a merchant corresponding to a received merchant identifier, and more particularly to determining the identity of a merchant associated with a merchant identifier based on the location of a user device at the time of a purchase transaction with the merchant.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 21, 28, and 35 are independent. Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 21. A computer implemented method to identify actual identities of previously unknown merchant locations based on merchant electronic transaction codes and locations of user devices, comprising, by a merchant identification system: for each of a plurality of electronic transactions between a merchant system and a user device: receiving a transaction record specifying an electronic transaction code of the merchant, the time of the transaction, and a data item indicating the user device, wherein the electronic transaction record does not directly disclose an actual identity of the merchant at a location of the transaction; determining a location of the user device at the time of the transaction; and determining a candidate actual identity of the merchant at the transaction location based on the determined location; and upon accumulating a threshold number of matching determined candidate actual identities for a particular location, assigning the matching candidate actual identity as the actual identity of the merchant at the particular location. Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-003218 Application 14/507,770 3 REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 21–40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Howe (US 2015/0051953 A1, pub. Feb. 19, 2015) and Carlson (US 2012/0094639 A1, pub. Apr. 19, 2012). ANALYSIS Claims 21–27 The Examiner finds that Howe discloses most limitations of claim 21. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner relies on Carlson as teaching the “upon accumulating” step. Id. at 5. Appellant first contends that Howe and Carlson fail to disclose or suggest the limitation “receiving a transaction record specifying an electronic transaction code of the merchant . . . wherein the electronic transaction record does not directly disclose an actual identity of the merchant at a location of the transaction” (“receiving limitation”). Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that paragraph 27 of Howe discloses the receiving limitation. Final Act. 3. This paragraph discloses: Each transaction data entry 208 may be related to a payment transaction and include a consumer identifier, a merchant identifier, and a transaction time and/or date. . . . The merchant identifier may be a unique value associated with a merchant (e.g., the merchant 108) involved in the related payment transaction that may be used to identify the associated merchant. For example, the merchant identifier may be a merchant identification number (MID) or other value as will be apparent to persons having skill in the relevant art. See Howe ¶ 27 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that “the merchant identifier in the transaction data entry includes a merchant identification Appeal 2021-003218 Application 14/507,770 4 number (MID) which is not . . . an actual identity of the merchant.” Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). The Examiner explains that the rejection does not rely on the embodiment in paragraph 28 of Howe, but rather, on the “separate embodiment” in paragraph 27. Final Act. 3. Appellant notes that paragraph 28 describes, “‘[i]n some embodiments, each transaction data entry 208 may also include additional transaction data, such as . . . merchant name.’” Appeal Br. 6 (quoting Howe ¶ 28). Appellant asserts, “the inclusion of merchant name in the transaction data entry of Howe clearly does not teach that ‘the electronic transaction record does not directly disclose an actual identity of the merchant at a location of the transaction,’” as claimed. Id. Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive. Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that paragraph 27 of Howe discloses that the “merchant identifier in the transaction data entry includes a merchant identification number (MID) which is not . . . an actual identity of the merchant.” Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). We disagree with Appellant that paragraphs 27 and 28 of Howe do not describe “separate embodiments.” Appeal Br. 5–6. Paragraph 28 discloses that, “in some embodiments,” each transaction data entry 208 may also include additional transaction data, such as merchant name. We interpret this description to mean that, in some embodiments each data entry 208 may also include a merchant name, whereas in other embodiments each data entry 208 may not also include a merchant name. In other words, each data entry 208 is not required to include merchant name in such other embodiments. Clearly, embodiments where each data entry 208 includes a merchant name can be considered different embodiments from embodiments where each data entry does not Appeal 2021-003218 Application 14/507,770 5 include merchant name. We interpret paragraph 28 as disclosing additional embodiments to those disclosed in paragraph 27; namely, additional embodiments where each data entry 208 includes a merchant name. We agree with the Examiner that such additional embodiments can be considered as “alternative” embodiments or “option[s].” Ans. 4. We agree with the Examiner that Howe’s teaching of using a merchant identifier number as a merchant identifier cannot be ignored. Ans. 5; see Howe ¶ 27. Indeed, a reference “may be used as evidence of obviousness under [35 U.S.C.] § 103 for all it fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543 (CCPA 1973). Accordingly, this disclosure can be used as evidence of obviousness. Appellant also contends that Carlson teaches that “the transaction message data includes a raw merchant name.” Appeal Br. 6 (citing Carlson ¶ 49). However, the Examiner relies on Howe, not Carlson, for the receiving limitation. Further, we note paragraph 49 of Carlson discloses, “[t]ransaction message data describing the merchant involved in the transaction may include a raw merchant name.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis added). This does not disclose that the transaction message data must include a “raw merchant name.” Thus, we disagree with Appellant’s interpretation. Second, Appellant contests the Examiner’s finding that Howe discloses “determining a location of the user device at the time of the transaction” and “determining a candidate actual identity of the merchant at the transaction location based on the determined location,” as recited in claim 21. Appeal Br. 7; see Final Act 5 (citing Howe ¶¶ 23, 46, 52). Paragraph 52 of Howe discloses: Appeal 2021-003218 Application 14/507,770 6 In another embodiment, the method 500 may also include identifying, by the processing device 204, a geo-fence for the merchant 108 associated with the common merchant identifier based on the generated boundary map 406. In yet another embodiment, the method 500 may further include associating, by the processing device 204, the generated boundary map 406 for the merchant 108 with a name of the merchant 108. In a further embodiment, the name of the merchant 108 may be included in at least one of the transaction data entries 208 included in the subset of transaction data entries. (Emphasis added). Appellant asserts, “Howe only associates the common merchant identifier, and optionally, the merchant name associated with the merchant, with the boundary map generated by the processing server 112.” Appeal Br. 7. We disagree. Paragraph 46 of Howe discloses: In step 506, a receiving device (e.g., the receiving unit 202) may receive, for each transaction data entry 208 in the identified subset of transaction data entries, a geographic location (e.g., geographic location 404) of a mobile communication device (e.g., the mobile device 104) associated with the respective included consumer identifier temporally proximal to the respective included transaction time and/or date. (Emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that Howe discloses “determining a location of the user device at the time of the transaction,” as recited in claim 21. Final Act. 5; Ans. 7. Paragraph 47 of Howe discloses: In step 508, a processing device (e.g., the processing unit 204) may generate a boundary map (e.g., the boundary map 406) for a merchant (e.g., the merchant 108) associated with the common merchant identifier based on the geographic locations 404 received for each transaction data entry 208 in the identified subset of transaction data entries. Appeal 2021-003218 Application 14/507,770 7 (Emphasis added). Howe discloses generating a boundary map 406 for a merchant 108 associated with a merchant identifier based on geographic locations of mobile communication devices for transaction data entries 208, and associating the generated boundary map 406 with a name of the merchant 108. Howe ¶¶ 46, 47, 52. We agree that Howe discloses or suggests “determining a candidate actual identity of the merchant at the transaction location based on the determined location,” because the boundary map is generated based on the “determined location” of the mobile communication devices. Appellant does not explain persuasively why “a merchant . . . associated with the common merchant identifier based on the geographic locations 404 received for each transaction data entry 208” is not “a candidate actual identity of the merchant.” Appeal Br. 7–8; see Howe ¶ 47 (emphasis added). The Examiner relies on Carlson as teaching the “upon accumulating” step, and concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Carlson with Howe “to more accurately determine a new location of a merchant without the need to physically visit the location or update via human interaction.” Final Act. 4–5. Appellant does not apprise us of error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 21 as unpatentable over Howe and Carlson. As Appellant relies on the dependency of claims 22–27 from claim 21 for patentability (Appeal Br. 8), we also sustain the rejection of claims 22–27 for the same reasons as for claim 21. Claims 28–40 Claim 28 is directed to “[a] non-transitory computer-readable storage device having computer-executable program instructions embodied thereon Appeal 2021-003218 Application 14/507,770 8 that when executed by a computer cause the computer to” perform operations that are substantially the same as the method steps recited in claim 21. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). Claim 35 is directed to “[a] system to identify actual identities of previously unknown merchant locations based on merchant electronic transaction codes and locations of user devices,” comprising a processor that causes the system to perform operations that are substantially the same as the method steps recited in claim 21. Id. at 13 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on the same findings and reasoning for claims 28 and 35 as for claim 21. Final Act. 4–6. Appellant contends that the applied references fail to disclose the features of claim 28 and claim 35 for the same reasons as for claim 21. Appeal Br. 8–9. As Appellant does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 21, we sustain the rejection of claims 28 and 35, and dependent claims 29–34 and 36–40, for the same reasons as for claim 21. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 21–40 103 Howe, Carlson 21–40 Appeal 2021-003218 Application 14/507,770 9 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation