SAP SEDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 15, 20212019006752 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 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. 14/754,578 06/29/2015 Theodor Foerster 54874-120F01US 1929 64280 7590 03/15/2021 Mintz Levin/SAP Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 EXAMINER NIPA, WASIKA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2433 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/15/2021 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): IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com IPFileroombos@mintz.com mintzdocketing@cpaglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THEODOR FOERSTER, IVO SCHMIDT, SERGEY SMIRNOV, and PETRA HOCHSTEIN Appeal 2019-006752 Application 14/754,578 Technology Center 2400 Before THU A. DANG, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 6–9, 12–15, 18, and 19. See Final Act. 1. Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 20 are canceled. Id. at 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 SAP SE of Walldorf, Germany, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-006752 Application 14/754,578 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The invention, according to Appellant, generally relates to ad hoc end- to-end authentication and authorization of logistics network services. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform operations comprising: scanning, by a scanner at a first mobile device associated with a transport participant in a transport assignment, an electronic authentication token displayed at a second mobile device associated with an external logistics provider operator of the transport assignment, the scanning initiated by a first mobile application at the first mobile device, the electronic authentication token displayed by a second mobile application at the second mobile device, the electronic authentication token being provided from a server to the second mobile device but not to the first mobile device, the electronic authentication token authorizing the external logistics provider operator for a transport assignment, the electronic authentication token linked, at the server, to the transport assignment, and the linking establishing a logical link between the electronic authentication token and the transport assignment that is only valid for a duration of the transport assignment; sending, by the first mobile application at the first mobile device to the server, the scanned electronic authentication token, the sending comprising a request to the server to verify, based at least on the scanned electronic authentication token that the external logistics provider operator is registered and authenticated for the transport assignment; and in response to receiving, from the server, a confirmation message, providing, by the first mobile application at the first mobile device, an indication that the external logistics provider operator is registered and authenticated for the transport assignment. Appeal 2019-006752 Application 14/754,578 3 Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). REJECTION2 Claims 1–3, 6–9, 12–15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Lim (US 2009/0001153 A1, published Jan. 1, 2009) and Barton et al. (US 2016/0078397 A1, published Mar. 17, 2016) (“Barton”). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the § 103 rejections of claims 1–3, 6–9, 12–15, 18, and 19 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant contends the cited portions of Lim and Barton do not teach or suggest a mobile application at one mobile device that scans an electronic authentication token displayed by a mobile application at another mobile device before sending the scanned electronic authentication token to a remote server for verification, as claim 1 requires. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues that “nowhere does Barton disclose or suggest sending a scanned delivery token to a remote server for 2 Claims 1–3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are also objected to because of informalities that require correction. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2019-006752 Application 14/754,578 4 verification.” Id. at 15. Appellant further argues that “[i]n order to convey a code to a verification agency for verification, Lim expressly requires a delivery agent to manually place a telephone call or send a message containing the code.” Id., citing Lim ¶¶ 40, 43. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Appellant attacks Lim and Barton individually, even though the Examiner relied on the combination of Lim and Barton in rejecting claim 1. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.”). The Examiner found Barton teaches that a delivery person uses a delivery device to scan a delivery token displayed on consumer device. Ans. 4, citing Barton ¶ 50. The Examiner found Lim teaches the limitation of verifying the scanned electronic authentication token by a remote server. Id., citing Lim ¶¶ 43, 45, 46. In particular, the Examiner found Lim teaches that a verification agency may receive electronically, by a computer, a request sent by a delivery agent, and if the codes match, the verification agency send an authorization message to the delivery agent. Id. Appellant has not persuasively addressed or rebutted the Examiner’s findings directed to the combined teachings of Lim and Barton. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Lim and Barton teaches or suggests scanning, by a scanner at a first mobile device associated with a transport participant in a transport assignment, an electronic authentication token displayed at a second mobile device associated with an external logistics provider operator of the transport assignment, the scanning initiated by a first mobile application at the first mobile device, the electronic Appeal 2019-006752 Application 14/754,578 5 authentication token displayed by a second mobile application at the second mobile device, ... sending, by the first mobile application at the first mobile device to the server, the scanned electronic authentication token, the sending comprising a request to the server to verify, based at least on the scanned electronic authentication token that the external logistics provider operator is registered and authenticated for the transport assignment; and in response to receiving, from the server, a confirmation message, providing, by the first mobile application at the first mobile device, an indication that the external logistics provider operator is registered and authenticated for the transport assignment, See Appeal Br. 14. Appellant next argues that the Examiner erred in combining the teachings of Lim and Barton. In addition to restating the arguments addressed above regarding the teachings of Lim and Barton, Appellant argues that Barton teaches away from the subject matter of claim 1. Appeal Br. 15–16. In particular, Appellant argues that Barton teaches away from verifying an electronic authentication token remotely at a server instead of locally at a mobile device. Id. at 16. Appellant points to paragraph 58 of Barton, which teaches that “whether the delivery tokens 4a, 4b match ... may be verified locally between the delivery device 13 and the customer device 3, without reference to a remote record.” Id. Appellant argues that “Lim’s reliance on a central verification agency is thoroughly inconsistent with Barton’s efforts to avoid remote verification altogether.” Reply Br. 6. Appellant’s “teaching away” argument fails because Appellant has not identified where Barton actually criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages “sending, by the first mobile application at the first mobile device to the server, the scanned electronic authentication token, the sending Appeal 2019-006752 Application 14/754,578 6 comprising a request to the server to verify, based at least on the scanned electronic authentication token that the external logistics provider operator is registered and authenticated for the transport assignment,” as recited in claim 1. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed”) (citing Fulton). Moreover, the Examiner provided “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see Final Act. 9. Appellant further argues that “[t]he Examiner provides no evidentiary support that a person having ordinary skill in the art is capable of making a creative leap necessary to bridge the gap present in the combination of Lim and Barton.” Appeal Br. 17. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive at least because it is based on Appellant’s position, addressed above, that “neither [Lim nor Barton] disclose []or suggest remotely verifying an electronic authentication token that is displayed by a mobile application at one mobile device and scanned by a mobile application at another mobile device.” Id. In the cases that Appellant cites (Appeal Br. 17), the Federal Circuit reversed conclusions of obviousness made by this Board where the proponent of obviousness relied on ordinary creativity and/or common sense to establish the obviousness of a claim element missing from the prior art. See DSS Tech. Management, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 885 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. Appeal 2019-006752 Application 14/754,578 7 2018); see also Arendi S.A.R.I. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In DSS, the court explained that ordinary creativity and/or common sense may be used to supply a missing claim element only when the missing element is “unusually simple and the technology particularly straightforward.” 885 F.3d at 1374 (quoting Arendi, 832 F.3d at 1362). We do not agree with Appellant that this case is one in which the Examiner relied on ordinary creativity and/or common sense to establish the obviousness of a claim element missing from the prior art. Rather, as we explained above, the combination of Lim and Barton teaches or suggests the “scanning” and “sending” limitations disputed by Appellant. No reliance on ordinary creativity or common sense was necessary to bridge a gap, as the prior art teaches or suggests all of the disputed claim elements. Moreover, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claims 7 and 13, not argued separately with particularity. Appeal. Br. 13. We also sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19, argued as a group with claim 1. See id. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 6–9, 12–15, 18, and 19. Appeal 2019-006752 Application 14/754,578 8 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 6–9, 12– 15, 18, 19 103 Lim, Barton 1–3, 6–9, 12– 15, 18, 19 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