Michelle Fisher

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2020

15076578 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 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.
15/076,578 03/21/2016 Michelle Fisher BLZMPO004C26C1 7276
12120 7590 03/02/2020
Michelle Fisher
2930 Domingo Ave
Suite 123
Berkeley, CA 94705
EXAMINER
GOYEA, OLUSEGUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2020 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 2019-000039
Application 15/076,578
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 on Appeal.
Appellant states 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 3, 8, 9, 12, and 17–19, have been

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. 42.
Appeal 2019-000039
Application 15/076,578
2

cancelled and replaced by new claims 21–45. Claims 1–45 are
reproduced and attached in the Claims Appendix.
Appeal Br. 2.
The Examiner finds:
[c]urrently, claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, 11, 13–16, 20–24 and 28–45
are pending. Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11 and 20–24 have been
amended. Claims 3, 8, 9, 12 and 17–19 have been cancelled.
Claims 28-45 are newly added.
Final Act. 2. The Examiner has re-numbered Claims 28–45 as 25–42. Id. at
3; see Claims Appendix.
Jurisdiction.
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, 11, 13–16, 20–24, and 28–45, as renumbered 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.
RELATED APPEALS AND TRIALS
Appellant declares the present Application is related to the Appeal of
US 14/253,648. App. Br. 2.
INVENTION
Summary of the Invention.
The invention is directed to a “method and system for conducting an
online payment transaction through a point of sale device.” Abstract.
Claims.
Claims 1, 10, and 20 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below with
formatting added for clarity:

Appeal 2019-000039
Application 15/076,578
3

1. A method for processing a transaction, comprising:
maintaining a non-browser based application in a mobile
device memory included in a mobile device,
wherein the non-browser based application is a
mobile operating system platform based mobile
application with a graphical user interface which includes
a graphical icon that is preinstalled or downloaded and
installed on 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
comprising the mobile device memory, a mobile device
display, a mobile device processor, and a mobile device
wireless radio interface, a mobile device wireless fidelity
(Wi-Fi) interface that supports voice and data interactions
through a first wireless communication channel device
using at least one of GSM and CDMA;
receiving, at the non-browser based application generated
screen, a list of products from a remote management server for
display using the non-browser based application;
receiving, at the non-browser based application generated
screen, an identification of one or more products selected from
the list of products from 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;
sending, from the non-browser based application
generated screen, the identification of one or more products to
the remote management server;
Appeal 2019-000039
Application 15/076,578
4

receiving a transaction purchase request from the non-
browser based application generated screen,
wherein the non-browser based application
generated screen receives the transaction purchase
request from the user via the mobile device display;
sending, from the non-browser based application
generated screen, the transaction purchase request to the remote
management server;
receiving 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
receives the user input login information through user
input via the mobile device display;
sending, from the non-browser based application
generated screen, the user input login information to the remote
management server; and
receiving information authenticating the user associated
with the user input login information from the remote
management server and further
wherein the remote management server receives a
transaction verification from a transaction server which
processes the transaction using a payment method that
corresponds to the identification code associated with the
user, wherein the payment method is stored at the remote
management server;
wherein the transaction verification indicates that
the transaction has processed; and
receiving, at the mobile device, the one or more products
from the remote management server.

Appeal 2019-000039
Application 15/076,578
5

REJECTIONS2 AT ISSUE3
References.
Name Publication Number Date
Gobburu US 2002/0060246 A1 May 23, 2002
Yang US 2002/0106081 A1 Aug. 8, 2002
Gautier US 2005/0021478 A1 Jan. 27, 2005
Hayashi US 2006/0095339 A1 May 4, 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
Bemmel US 2008/0046366 A1 Feb. 21, 2008

Rejections.
1. The rejection of Claims 27, 28, 30, 36, 37, and 39 under 35 U.S.C.
112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement (Final Act. 3–7) was withdrawn. See
Advisory Action mailed March 13, 2018, Face Page.
2. Claims 1, 2, 5–7, 10, 11, 14–16, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32–35, 39, 41,
and 42 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rackley, Gautier, and Hotelling. Final Act. 8–15.

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 (“Appeal Br.”)
filed July 3, 2018, the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed September 24, 2018,
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed December 6, 2017, the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed July 27, 2018, and the Specification
(“Spec.”) filed March 21, 2016.
Appeal 2019-000039
Application 15/076,578
6

3. Claims 4 and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling, and Bemmel.
Final Act. 16.
4. Claims 21 and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling, and Hayashi.
Final Act. 16–17.
5. Claims 27, 28, 36, and 37 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as being unpatentable over Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling, and
Roever. Final Act. 17–19.
6. Claims 29 and 38 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling, and Gobburu.
Final Act. 19–20.
7. Claims 31 and 40 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling, and Gobburu.
Final Act. 20–21.
ANALYSIS
Overview.
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.
CLAIMS 1, 2, 4–7, 10, 11, 13–16, 20–24, and 28–45: OBVIOUSNESS OVER
RACKLEY, GAUTIER, HOTELLING, AND VARIOUS SECONDARY REFERENCES.
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 § 103
Appeal 2019-000039
Application 15/076,578
7

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); 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.
Non-browser based application.
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.”
Appellant contends Gautier teaches the mobile device interacts with a
remote server and teaches “when the ‘the application program is
interacting with a remote server’, it displays content a ‘browser like
manner.’” Appeal Br. 22 (citing Gautier ¶¶ 80–81). Appellant argues this
teaching contradicts the claims which recite a non-browser based
application. Id.
The Examiner finds Gautier teaches “[a] potential purchaser can
search and browse through numerous media items on-line that are available
for purchase.” Ans. 23. The Examiner further finds the media player can be
used to browse, purchase, download and store a media item on a user’s
machine and that after downloading, the media player can play the item
locally without a network connection. Id.
We find, contrary to the Examiner, that Gautier teaches a web-
browser is required. Although not required to play media, once obtained,
Gautier teaches a browser is required to obtain the media, contrary to the
claims.
Appeal 2019-000039
Application 15/076,578
8

With respect to Rackley, the Examiner cites, inter alia paragraphs 22
and 128 as teaching non-browser based applications. Final Act. 9.
Contrary to the Examiner, Rackley teaches “payee information is
input by the user via the Internet-accessible web site” (Rackley ¶ 35) and
“[m]obile devices include such items as cellphones and PDAs that are
connected for data communications via a wireless network to an MFTS” (id.
¶ 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.). Final Act 9.
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.
Thus we find, contrary to the claims, that each of Gautier and Rackley
teaches that a user interacts with the referenced servers using a browser-
based application.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–7,
10, 11, 14–
16, 20, 22,
24–26, 30,
32–35, 39,
41, 42

103 Rackley, Gautier,
Hotelling
1, 2, 5–7,
10, 11, 14–
16, 20, 22,
24–26, 30,
32–35, 39,
41, 42
Appeal 2019-000039
Application 15/076,578
9

4, 13 103 Rackley, Gautier,
Hotelling, Bemmel

4, 13
21, 23 103 Rackley, Gautier,
Hotelling, Hayashi

21, 23
27, 28, 36,
37
103 Rackley, Gautier,
Hotelling, Roever

27, 28, 36,
37
28, 29 103 Rackley, Gautier,
Hotelling,
Gobburu

28, 29
31, 40 103 Rackley, Gautier,
Hotelling, Yang

31, 40
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–7,
10, 11, 13–
16, 20–24,
and 28–45

REVERSED