Square, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2020

15923403 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 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.
15/923,403 03/16/2018 Cedric Staub S156-0323US 3604
126350 7590 09/03/2020
Lee & Hayes, P.C./Square
601 West Riverside Avenue
Suite 1400
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
NIGH, JAMES D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2020 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):
lhpto@leehayes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CEDRIC STAUB and ANTHONY BISHOPRIC
Appeal 2020-004278
Application 15/923,403
Technology Center 3600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, BETH Z. SHAW, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, 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 to reject claims 1–8, 10–15, and 17–22. See Final Act.
1. 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 Square, Inc. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004278
Application 15/923,403
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to detecting alterations of journal data
structures. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for preventing tampering with two or more account
journals associated with a merchant, the method performed by
one or more computer servers associated with a network-based
accounting service, the method comprising:
providing, by the one or more computer servers associated
with the network-based accounting service and to a client device
operable by the merchant, an interface enabling the merchant to
record transactions in the two or more account journals of the
merchant, wherein the two or more account journals are managed
by the network-based accounting service;
receiving, via a first input to the interface and by the one
or more computer servers associated with the network-based
accounting service, a first request to record a first transaction of
a temporally ordered sequence of transactions associated with the
merchant, wherein the first request specifies first transaction data
to be recorded in two or more journal entries and a transaction
signature created with a private key of an asymmetric
cryptographic key pair of the merchant;
verifying, via the one or more computer servers associated
with the network-based accounting service, the transaction
signature using a public key of the asymmetric cryptographic key
pair to confirm that the first request is from the merchant;
adding, via the one or more computer servers associated
with the network-based accounting service, a first journal entry
in a first account journal of the two or more account journals to
record at least a portion of the first transaction data;
adding, via the one or more computer servers associated
with the network-based accounting service, a second journal
entry in a second account journal of the two or more account
journals to record at least another portion of the first transaction
data, wherein the second journal entry at least partially offsets
the first journal entry;
Appeal 2020-004278
Application 15/923,403
3
determining, via the one or more computer servers
associated with the network-based accounting service, a first
authentication tag of the first journal entry based at least in part
on a first sequential key, wherein the first authentication tag
comprises a message authentication code determined based on a
plurality of fields of the first journal entry and the first sequential
key;
associating, via the one or more computer servers
associated with the network-based accounting service, the first
authentication tag with the first journal entry;
calculating, via the one or more computer servers
associated with the network-based accounting service, a second
sequential key by applying a one-way function to the first
sequential key;
discarding, via the one or more computer servers
associated with the network-based accounting service, the first
sequential key;
receiving, via a second input to the interface and by the
one or more computer servers associated with the network-based
accounting service, a second request to record a second
transaction, wherein:
the second request specifies second transaction data to be
recorded in two or more additional journal entries;
the two or more additional journal entries offset one
another in different account journals of the two or more account
journals; and
the second transaction is immediately subsequent to the
first transaction in the temporally ordered sequence of
transactions;
adding, via the one or more computer servers associated
with the network-based accounting service, a third journal entry
in the first account journal to record at least a portion of the
second transaction data;
determining, via the one or more computer servers
associated with the network-based accounting service, a second
authentication tag of the third journal entry based at least in part
on the second sequential key;
associating, via the one or more computer servers
associated with the network-based accounting service, the
second authentication tag with the third journal entry;
Appeal 2020-004278
Application 15/923,403
4
discarding, via the one or more computer servers
associated with the network-based accounting service, the
second sequential key; and
verifying, via the one or more computer servers associated
with the network-based accounting service, an integrity of the
first account journal based on at least one of the first
authentication tag or the second authentication tag.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bellare Mihir Bellare & Bennet Yee, Forward-Security in
Private-Key Cryptography, Topics in Cryptogoly –
CT-RSA ’03
2003
Kelsey J. Kelsey et al., Signed Syslog Messages, Internet
Engineering Task Force Proposed Standard RFC 5848,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5848
2010
Marson Giorgia Azzurra Marson & Bertram Poettering, Even
more practical secure logging: Tree-Based Seekable
Sequential Key Generators
2015
Pillay Iresh Pillay, What is triple entry accounting?
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-triple-entry-
accounting-iresh-pillay (last viewed August 19, 2019)
2017

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Kelsey, Marson, Bellare, and Pillay. Final Act. 3.
Claims 6–8, 10, 11, 13–15, and 17–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Marson and Pillay. Final Act. 10.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kelsey, Marson, and Pillay. Final Act. 20.
Appeal 2020-004278
Application 15/923,403
5
OPINION
We conclude the Examiner did not err in finding one skilled in the art
would have recognized the combination of references teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations in claims 1–8, 10–15, and 17–22. We refer to, rely on,
and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the Final
Rejection and Answer. See Final Act. 2–21; Ans. 2–9.
Appellant argues Marson does not teach or suggest “determining, via
the one or more computer servers associated with the network-based
accounting service, a first authentication tag of the first journal entry based
at least in part on a first sequential key, wherein the first authentication
tag comprises a message authentication code determined based on a
plurality of fields of the first journal entry and the first sequential key,”
as claim 1 recites. Appeal Br. 14. In particular, Appellant argues Marson
does not teach or suggest generating an “authentication tag” based on a
sequential key and a “plurality of fields of the first journal entry and the first
authentication key.” Id. at 14–15 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds that
Marson teaches that the authentication tag is a forward-secure
variant of a message authentication code, or MAC on page 2 in
the section titled “Forward-secure cryptography for log file
protection” and at section 3.3 where a key for a particular epoch
is generated using what is described by Marson as the Evolve
algorithm. The syslog messages themselves are described by
Kelsey in RFC 5848 as consisting of structured data elements
(section 1 at the bottom of page 4 continuing onto page 5 and
further described in sections 3 and 9.1). Marson references the
Kelsey document in the reference section at item 11 regarding
the May 2010 draft of RFC 5848. Clearly Marson and those
skilled in the art understood that the MAC generated using
Marson’s sequential key was a signed syslog message and
therefore constituted a plurality of fields based on the data
Appeal 2020-004278
Application 15/923,403
6
structure that is part of a syslog as defined by RFC 5848.
Appellant’s argument does not go into any particular detail as to
what Appellant views as deficient in Marson and Examiner only
can presume that the emboldened “plurality of fields” language
is what is being contested by Appellant as the argument does not
go beyond the restatement of the claim. Therefore Examiner does
not see where Appellant has shown any clear error on the part of
the Examiner.
Ans. 5–6.
In reply, Appellant argues that there is no discussion in Marson about
using the structured data elements of a syslog message to generate a message
authentication code. Reply Br. 4. However,
[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. . . . [I]f a technique has
been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill
in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices
in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Marson need not
have a precise teaching to use the structured data elements of a syslog to
generate a message authentication code to render the claim obvious, for such
an addition would have been within ordinarily skilled artisans’ knowledge
when accounting for the inferences and creative steps that these artisans
would have employed. See id. at 416. In “the context of secure logging,”
Marson describes protecting locally stored log files using a message
authentication code that equips all occurring log messages with an
authentication tag. Marson, section 3.3. As the Examiner explains in the
Answer, and we agree, syslog messages are described by Kelsey as
consisting of structured data elements, and Marson references Kelsey
regarding protecting log files. Marson, 3; Ans. 5.
Appeal 2020-004278
Application 15/923,403
7
Appellant additionally argues that Pillay does not teach “providing, by
the one or more computer servers associated with the network-based
accounting service and to a client device operable by the merchant, an
interface enabling the merchant to record transactions in the two or more
account journals of the merchant, wherein the two or more account journals
are managed by the network-based accounting service.” Appeal Br. 15;
Reply Br. 5–6. Appellant argues that “due to the fundamentals of blockchain
technology,” i.e., because blockchains are decentralized, Pillay cannot teach
the “providing,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 15–16. Appellant argues that claim
1 recites that the account journals are managed by a central authority
because the preamble recites the servers are associated with the network-
based accounting service. Id. Yet, as the Examiner points out, and we agree,
the claim does not require a “central authority.” See Ans. 6, 7. Rather, the
claim refers to “one or more computer servers.” Although Appellant argues
on page 6 of the Reply Brief that the bookkeeping and accounting operations
described are performed in a way that is not done by distributed peer
devices, we are not persuaded by this argument because it is not
commensurate in scope with claim 1, which does not preclude the use of
distributed servers. Accordingly, this argument is not commensurate in
scope with the claim language.
Finally, Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to
combine Kelsey, Marson, and Pillay to teach the subject matter of claim 1.
Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 6–7. As the Examiner determines, however,
Marson refers directly to Kelsey, and Appellant does not directly address the
motivation statements made in the Final Rejection in the Appeal Brief. Ans.
7. Appellant also argues that “the Office appears to be relying upon . . . a
problem . . . rather than recognition of a solution to such a problem” and
Appeal 2020-004278
Application 15/923,403
8
“the currently cited documents would have led one of ordinary skill in the art
in a direction different than the solution recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 16–
17. We are not persuaded by this argument because:
[T]he problem motivating the patentee may be only one of many
addressed by the patent’s subject matter. The question is not
whether the combination was obvious to the patentee but whether
the combination was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in
the art. Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known
in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by
the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the
manner claimed.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. Other than a general assertion without evidentiary
support in the Reply Brief, (see Reply Br. 7), Appellant has not
demonstrated that the Examiner’s proffered combination would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” and,
therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the proposed modification would
have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same
reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 2–5, for which Appellant presents
the same or essentially the same arguments as claim 1. See Appeal Br. 17.
Claim 6
Regarding independent claim 6, Appellant reiterates some of the same
arguments as made for claim 1, and we are not persuaded by those
arguments for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
See Appeal Br. 18–19. Additionally, Appellant argues that Marson’s
“system events” are not “transactions” that are associated with a “network-
based accounting service,” as recited in claim 6. Appeal Br. 17–18.
Appeal 2020-004278
Application 15/923,403
9
Appellant argues Marson does not teach or suggest “adding, by the server
computing system, a first journal data entry to a first journal data structure to
record at least a portion of the first transaction data,” because Marson more
generally describes computer logs and does not describe a “data structure”
that is “associated with an account journal,” as claim 6 requires. Id.
Appellant provides insufficient evidence proving that the Specification or
claims limit “transactions” or “data structures” in a way that, under a broad
but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Marson’s teachings of
log files recording a variety of system events. See Final Act. 10–11 (citing
Marson, sections 1, 3.3.); Ans. 8. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 6.
For the same reasons, we sustain the rejections of the remaining
pending claims, for which Appellant presents the same or essentially the
same arguments. See Appeal Br. 19–20. Despite nominally arguing these
claims separately, Appellant reiterates similar arguments made in connection
with claims 1 or 6, and alleges that the additional cited prior art fails to cure
those purported deficiencies. Id. We are not persuaded by these arguments
for the reasons previously discussed.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
Appeal 2020-004278
Application 15/923,403
10
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5 103 Marson, Pillay,
Kelsey, Bellare
1–5
6–8, 10, 11,
13–15, 17–
22
103 Marson, Pillay 6–8, 10, 11,
13–15, 17–
22

12 103 Marson, Pillay,
Kelsey
12
Overall
Outcome
1–8, 10–15,
17–22

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