Neustar, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 29, 20212020005121 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 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. 14/321,495 07/01/2014 Steven Todd Kirsch 4380.0030002 1514 26111 7590 12/29/2021 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER BAYOU, YONAS A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2434 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2021 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): e-office@sternekessler.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEVEN TODD KIRSCH ___________ Appeal 2020–005121 Application 14/321,495 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID J. CUTITTA II and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 41–60 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 9–15. Claims 41, 48 and 53 are 1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 21, 2020), the Reply Brief (filed June 29, 2020), the Final Action (mailed December 20, 2018) and the Answer (mailed April 29, 2020), for the respective details. 2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. 1.42(a). (“The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.”). Appellant identifies Neustar, Inc. as the real party Appeal 2020-005121 Application 14/321,495 2 independent. Claims 1–40 are canceled. See Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Introduction According to Appellant: As many everyday transactions move to an online environment, a large amount of personal information must be sent over the Internet. Many experts consider the insecurity of online identities to be the most important problem to be solved on the Internet today. Users of social networks, online banking, e-commerce, online transactions, and/or email are in constant danger of phishing, malware, and key logging attacks, as well as massive centralized data breaches that expose users’ passwords and financial account information. Specification ¶ 5. The present invention relates generally to protecting encrypted data. More specifically, the present invention relates to methods and systems for using a fully encrypted repository to store data. Merely by way of example, the invention has been applied to a method of storing and retrieving encrypted data from a fully encrypted repository for use in an online transaction. The methods and techniques can be applied to a variety of information and retail systems. Specification ¶ 7. in interest. Appeal Brief 3. Appeal 2020-005121 Application 14/321,495 3 Representative Claim3 (disputed limitations emphasized) 41. A method of securely authorizing an electronic transaction by an identity protection system, the method comprising: receiving a proposed transaction involving a user; accessing a list of devices associated with the user and identifying a plurality of devices that have been preselected by the user; causing presentation of (1) the proposed transaction and (2) an option to approve or disapprove the proposed transaction to current users of the plurality of devices, wherein responses to the presented option, if provided, are transmitted to the identity protection system by the plurality of devices; receiving the responses from at least a subset of the plurality of devices; and causing completion of the proposed transaction after a predetermined amount of time if all of the received responses approve the proposed transaction. 3 Appellant does not argue independent claims 41, 48 or 53 individually. See Appeal Brief 10 (“Independent claims 41, 48 and 53 are patentable over the art of record for at least the following reasons.”). Accordingly, we select independent claim 41 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone.”). Appeal 2020-005121 Application 14/321,495 4 References Name4 Reference Date Kim US 2006/0131385 A1 June 22, 2006 Labrou US 2006/0206709 A1 September 14, 2006 Rejection on Appeal Claims 41–60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Labrou and Kim. Final Action 3–7. ANALYSIS Appellant contends: the Final Office Action erroneously relies on the premise that reference Kim discloses the claimed feature “accessing a list of devices associated with the user and identifying a plurality of devices that have been preselected by the user,” when in fact this reference discloses a single phone number of a single mobile device. Appeal Brief 9. The Examiner determines, “Labrou does not explicitly disclose accessing a list of devices associated with the user and identifying a plurality of devices that have been preselected by the user; causing completion of the proposed transaction after a predetermined amount of time if all of the received responses approve the proposed transaction.” Answer 4. The Examiner, relying on Kim to address Labrou’s noted deficiencies, disagrees with Appellant’s contentions and submits: Kim does disclose ‘accessing a list of devices associated with the user and identifying a plurality of devices that have been preselected by the user’ (para. 0034 and fig. 2; according to database 123 in fig. 2, list of devices (can be different phone#) associated with the user (can be the same account#); see also fig. 1 list of devices 101 - 4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2020-005121 Application 14/321,495 5 1, 2, . . . N; paras. 0045, 0067, the variations and modification such as ‘list of devices’ is understood and may occur to those skilled in the art; and fig. 4). Final Action 2, Answer 8. Kim’s Figure 1, reproduced below, “shows a block diagram of a system for performing secure online transactions according to an embodiment of the present invention.” Kim ¶ 12. In this system, credit card users 102-1 through 102-N can connect with an online merchant server 114 via a network 112 using their user computing devices 110-1 through 110-N . . . The user computing devices 110 can be any suitable device capable of establishing communication with the network, including personal computers, laptop computers, and/or wireless communications devices (e.g., cellular phones, personal digital assistants (“PDAs”)). Kim ¶ 22. Appeal 2020-005121 Application 14/321,495 6 Kim’s Figure 2, reproduced below, “shows a block diagram of a transaction authorization server coupled to a cardholder information database according to an embodiment of the present invention.” Kim ¶ 13. [T]he transaction authorization server 122 is in communication with the cardholder information database 124 to access account information required to process transaction requests . . . Although FIG. 2 shows that the phone number information 272 is stored in the cardholder information database 124 along with other account information, it will be appreciated that the phone number information may be stored in another database separate from the cardholder information database. Kim ¶ 35. Appeal 2020-005121 Application 14/321,495 7 Appellant contends: The Office’s Reliance on Kim for Disclosure of the “Accessing a List of Devices Associated With the User and Identifying a Plurality of Devices That Have Been Preselected by the User” Feature of Independent Claims 41, 48 and 53 is Clearly Erroneous Since Kim Discloses a Single Phone Number of a Single Mobile Device. Appeal Brief 10 (emphasis omitted); see Reply Brief 2. Appellant argues, “the Office states that Kim discloses a ‘phone number retrieving program 225 on the server 122 retrieving a phone number of a mobile device assigned to the requesting account by searching the cardholder information database 124,” but that “this analysis clearly does not disclose the recited ‘list of devices,’ since at best the Office’s characterization of Kim refers to only a single device.” Appeal Brief 12; see Final Action 4, Answer 4, Kim Figures 1, 2. Appellant further argues: Moreover, the Office compounds the error by mis-stating the claim language. The actual claim language is “list of devices associated with the user,” while the Office instead states “the list being associated with the entity.” Thus, the Office incorrectly associates the entity (user) with the list, while the claim language requires “devices associated with the user.” Appeal Brief 12 (emphasis added), see Final Action 4, Answer 4. We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive of Examiner error. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”). Kim discloses in Figure 1 “credit card users 102-1 through 102-N can connect with an online merchant server 114 Appeal 2020-005121 Application 14/321,495 8 via a network 112 using their user computing devices 110-1 through 110-N.” Kim ¶ 22. Furthermore, Kim teaches, “The pending transaction database 123 is used to maintain records of pending transaction requests, which are waiting for a reply from cardholders [credit card users].” Kim ¶ 34; see Answer 4; Final Action 4. As the Examiner finds, different phone numbers corresponding to different devices may be stored in column 253 of Kim’s pending transaction database 123 and the different phone numbers may each correspond to a single user associated with an account number stored in column 252. Answer 8 (citing Kim Figure 2). Moreover, Appellant’s Figure 15’s flowchart displays a “method 1500 [that] includes providing a processor and receiving a request for a proposed transaction from an entity (1510)” wherein “[t]he entity can be a user, a company, a customer, or the like and the request can be received at a transaction processor such as a financial institution. The method also includes obtaining a list of devices associated with the entity (1512).” Specification ¶ 515. Consequently, we discern no meaningful difference between the claimed associated with the user limitation and the Examiner’s finding that Kim teaches “the claimed ‘accessing a list of devices, the list being associated with the entity.’” Answer 4. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error.5 We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 41, 48 and 53, as well as, dependent claims 42–47, 49–52 and 53–60 not argued separately. See Appeal Brief 14–15. 5 Claim 41 further recites, emphasis added, “(2) an option to approve or disapprove the proposed transaction to current users of the plurality of devices.” We note, the correlation between a user identifying a plurality of devices and current users of the plurality of devices may be subject to various interpretations and therefore the scope of claim 41 may not be determinable. Appeal 2020-005121 Application 14/321,495 9 DECISION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 41–60 103 Labrou, Kim 41–60 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation