Visa International Service Association

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 9, 2020

2020002105 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 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.
14/268,822 05/02/2014 QUAN WANG 79900-897985(042700USNP) 1062
66945 7590 12/09/2020
Visa / Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
MERCADO, GABRIEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2020 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte QUAN WANG

Appeal 2020-002105
Application 14/268,822
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–8,
10, 21–27, 29–30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–8, 10, 21, 23–26, 29–30, and 32; but we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 22 and 27. Thus, we
AFFIRM IN PART.2

1 The Appellant is the “applicant” as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (e.g., “the
inventor or all of the joint inventors”). “The real party in interest in this
patent application is Visa International Service Association.” (Appeal
Br. 3.)
2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).
Appeal 2020-002105
Application 14/268,822

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to the Appellant, its invention is a method “for providing a
transaction processing system that is capable of generating virtual currency
on behalf of merchants.” (Spec. ¶ 8.)
Illustrative Claim
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a server computer, a network protocol
packet including a network protocol header and a transaction
payload for a transaction conducted using virtual currency, the
network protocol header including a network header portion,
the network header portion including a transaction type
identifier indicating whether the transaction is a financial
transaction using virtual currency, an issuer identifier, a virtual
currency token identifier, and a consumer identifier, and the
transaction payload including an authorization request message;
determining that the transaction type identifier in the
network protocol header indicates the network protocol packet
is associated with the financial transaction using virtual
currency;
parsing, by the server computer, the issuer identifier, the
consumer identifier, and the virtual currency token identifier
from the network header portion;
determining, by the server computer, a consumer profile
using the consumer identifier;
prior to processing the authorization request message in
the transaction payload of the network protocol packet,
verifying, by the server computer, that the issuer identifier and
the virtual currency token identifier parsed from the network
header portion are associated with the consumer profile
determined by the consumer identifier parsed from the network
header portion;
subsequent to verifying that the issuer identifier and the
virtual currency token identifier are associated with the
consumer profile, processing, by the server computer, the
transaction using virtual currency data in the consumer profile
Appeal 2020-002105
Application 14/268,822

3
and the authorization request message in the transaction
payload of the network protocol packet;
generating, by the server computer, a response message
indicating authorization of the transaction; and
transmitting, by the server computer, the response
message to a communication device.
References
Karlov US 2014/0143155 A1 May 22, 2014
Howe US 2014/0250007 A1 September 4, 2014
Brinkman US 2013/0067208 A1 March 14, 2013
Barnett US 2012/0317018 A1 December 13, 2012
Ocko US 2011/0212762 A1 September 1, 2011
Gould US 2011/0112951 A1 May 12, 2011
Wilkes US 2010/0306092 A1 December 2, 2010
Crooks US 2008/0005394 A1 January 3, 2008
Kinoshita US 2003/0055792 A1 March 20, 2003
Li US 2002/0153424 A1 October 24, 2002
MCD Microsoft Computer Dictionary 5th Edition (2002)
Rejections
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–6, 8, 10, 29, and 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wilkes, Crooks, Brinkman, and Ocko.
(Final Action 5–6.)
II. The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wilkes, Crooks, Brinkman, Ocko, and Li. (Final
Action 15–16.)
III. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wilkes, Crooks, Brinkman, Ocko, and Gould. (Final
Action 18.)
IV. The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wilkes, Crooks, Brinkman, Ocko, and Kinoshita. (Final
Action 19.)
Appeal 2020-002105
Application 14/268,822

4
V. The Examiner rejects claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wilkes, Crooks, Brinkman, Ocko, Kinoshita, and MCD.
(Final Action 20–21.)
VI. The Examiner rejects claims 23–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wilkes, Crooks, Brinkman, Ocko, Kinoshita, and Barnett.
(Final Action 23.)
VII. The Examiner rejects claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wilkes, Crooks, Brinkman, Ocko, Kinoshita, and Karlov.
(Final Action 25.)
VIII. The Examiner rejects claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wilkes, Crooks, Brinkman, Ocko, Kinoshita, Karlov, and
Howe. (Final Action 26.)
IX. The Examiner rejects claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wilkes, Crooks, Brinkman, Ocko, Kinoshita, Karlov, and
MCD. (Final Action 28.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest of
the claims on appeal depending therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Independent claims 1 and 10 recite a method involving a “transaction” and
“authorization” thereof. (Id.)
Independent Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites an “authorization request message” and a
“response message indicating authorization of the transaction.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Wilkes discloses a computerized
method for circulating currency involving a transaction and authorization
thereof. (See Final Action 6.) Wilkes discloses a system 100 in which a
Appeal 2020-002105
Application 14/268,822

5
“transaction provider 120” (i.e., a computer server) receives “a transfer
request 133 from [a] first entity 132 to transfer a particular currency
note 114 to a second entity 134 (e.g., make a payment to the second entity
134) over a network.” (Wilkes ¶ 48, see also id. ¶ 25.) “The transaction
provider 120 may authorize the request and, if the request is authorized, may
transfer ownership of the one or more currency notes 112.” (Id. ¶ 47.)
Independent claim 1 requires the transaction to be “a transaction
conducted using virtual currency.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The
Examiner finds that Wilkes’s system processes virtual-currency transactions.
(See Final Action 6.) Wilkes discloses that its system 100 “may be adapted
to circulate a ‘virtual currency’” and that “[o]wnership of virtual currency
notes may be transferred between entities” in the same manner as “actual”
currency notes. (Wilkes ¶ 73.) And, “[i]n some embodiments, virtual
currency notes may be electronically circulated with ‘actual currency’ notes
in the same system.” (Id.)
Independent claim 1 requires a “verifying” step to be performed “prior
to processing the authorization request message.” (Appeal Br., Claims
App.) As indicated above, in Wilkes’s system 100, a request 133 is made to
transfer a particular currency note 114 to a second entity. (See Wilkes ¶ 48.)
Wilkes discloses “verifying that the first entity (the transferor) is the owner
of the currency note(s) to be transferred,” by “accessing ownership
information associated with the currency notes” before transferring
ownership of said currency note(s). (Id. ¶ 132.) Thus, Wilkes teaches that,
if someone other than the owner of a certain currency note is attempting to
fraudulently transfer this currency note to the second entity, the “method
may terminate without performing the transfer.” (Id. ¶ 135.)
Appeal 2020-002105
Application 14/268,822

6
Independent claim 1 more particularly requires verifying that an
“issuer identifier” and a “virtual currency token identifier” are “associated
with [a] consumer profile” determined by a “consumer identifier.” (Appeal
Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Wilkes’s verification steps
includes associating such identifiers with the first entity. (See Final
Action 6, 8.) Wilkes discloses an indication of the “issuer of [a] virtual
currency note” (Wilkes ¶ 91), “a unique note identifier” (id. ¶ 24), and “a
unique entity identifier” (id. ¶ 31). And Wilkes teaches that “[i]f the
identifiers match, the transaction provider 120 may verify that the first
entity 132 is the owner of the currency note 114, and the requested transfer
may proceed.” (Id. ¶ 48, see also ¶ 132.)
Independent claim 1 requires a “network protocol packet” having a
“network protocol header” that includes the “issuer identifier,” the “virtual
currency token identifier,” and the “consumer identifier.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Crooks teaches putting transaction-
authenticating information in a packet header. (See Final Action 9.) Crooks
discloses a method for “fraud detection” in which “packet header information
associated with [an] online commercial transaction[]” is received in order to
“analyze the packet header information for authenticating information.”
(Crooks ¶ 9.)
As discussed above, in Wilkes’s system, a computer server receives a
transfer request with certain transaction-authenticating identifiers that are
used to prevent fraudulent transactions. (See Wilkes ¶¶ 24, 31, 48, 73, 91,
132, 135.) The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to
modify the transfer request and system of Wilkes to transmit authentication
information in the message header, as taught by Crooks.” (Final Action 9.)
Appeal 2020-002105
Application 14/268,822

7
The Examiner explains that this would result in a network protocol header
including “the issuer identifier, the consumer identifier, and the virtual
currency token identifier.” (Id.)
The Appellant argues that Crooks does not describe “what
information in the packet header” is used for authentication” and/or how
such information is “used to perform the purported authentication.” (Appeal
Br. 12.) The Appellant also argues that the information in the header portion
of Crooks relates “to tracking a user’s activity on a website” and this
information “has nothing to do with virtual currencies or issuers of virtual
currencies.” (Id. at 13.) These arguments might be persuasive if Crooks
needed to be relied upon “to teach the specific authentication information of
claim 1.” (Answer 5.) However, in the Examiner’s proposed combination
of the prior art, Wilkes can be relied upon to teach the “specific
authentication information” and, therefore, Crooks need only be relied upon
to teach “the concept of having and parsing (construing) the authentication
information in a ‘network header portion’ for analysis.” (Id.)
The Appellant argues that the Examiner does “not explain how putting
an issuer identifier and a virtual currency token identifier in the packet
header would help identify or prevent a man-in-the middle attack.” (Appeal
Br. 14.)3 This argument is not persuasive because Wilkes explains how
these transaction-authenticating identifiers would help identify and prevent
fraud. Insofar as Crooks’s teachings on the actual authentication analysis
are confined to man-in-the middle attacks, Crooks’s teachings about the

3 According to the Appellant, “[m]an-the-middle attacks refer to the situation
when a malicious party secretly intercepts and relays communications
between two parties who believe they are directly communicating with each
other.” (Appeal Br. 4.)
Appeal 2020-002105
Application 14/268,822

8
transfer and receipt of transaction-authenticating information (i.e., in a
packet header) are not so confined.
The Appellant appears to contend that, in Wilkes’s system, fraud can
also be identified/prevented “by including such identifiers in the data
payload of a network protocol packet as opposed to the network header
portion of the packet.” (Reply Br. 4.) The Appellant seems to be
contending that putting Wilkes’s identifiers in a network header portion is
one of two known options available to one of ordinary skill in the art when
transferring these identifiers to a computer server for authentication
purposes. However, absent alleviating evidence to the contrary, availing one
of ordinary skill in the art with two obvious options does not negate the
obviousness of either option.
Independent claim 1 also requires the network protocol header to
include “a transaction type identifier indicating whether the transaction is a
financial transaction using virtual currency.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) As
discussed above, Wilkes’s system electronically circulates virtual currency
notes “along with ‘actual’ currency notes.” (Wilkes ¶ 73.)4 It follows,
therefore, that Wilkes’s system would need to distinguish between virtual
and non-virtual transaction types when verifying/authenticating a
transaction. Thus, this transaction-type identifier would likewise be
transaction-authenticating information and, as discussed above, Crooks
teaches putting such transaction-authenticating information in a packet
header.

4 Inasmuch as this would not be apparent from Wilkes itself, the Appellant
acknowledges that “Ocko may arguably describe transaction information
indicating virtual currency is being used.” (Appeal Br. 15.)
Appeal 2020-002105
Application 14/268,822

9
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Rejection I).
Independent Claim 10
The Appellant argues only that the rejection of independent claim 10
should be reversed “for reasons similar to those discussed above with respect
to claim 1.” (Appeal Br. 15.) Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Rejection I).
Dependent Claims 2–8, 21, 23–26, 29, 30, and 32
“For the purpose of this appeal,” these dependent claims “stand or fall
with respect to independent claim 1.” (Appeal Br. 10.) Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2–8, 21, 23–26, 29, 30, and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Rejections I–IV, VI, VII, IX).
Dependent Claims 22 and 27
Dependent claims 22 and 27 require a “location proxy,” a “POS
terminal,” and a “location terminal.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The
Examiner finds that Kinoshita teaches that an electronic payment system can
have a location proxy (payment gateway 15), a POS terminal 11, and a
location terminal (mobile terminal 17). (See Final Action 20.) The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious, in view of the teachings of
Kinoshita, for Wilkes’s method to have a location proxy which is used in
conjunction with a POS terminal and a location terminal. (See id.)
Dependent claim 22 requires the location proxy to generate the
network header portion “by combining header fields received from both [a]
location terminal and [a] POS terminal.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Dependent claim 27 requires a device identifier to be “provided to the
location proxy by both the location terminal and the POS terminal.” (Id.)
Appeal 2020-002105
Application 14/268,822

10
Thus, claims 22 and 27 require the location proxy to receive information
from both the POS terminal and the location terminal. The Examiner finds
that Kinoshita teaches that information is “submitted by both” the POS
terminal and the location terminal. (Final Action 21, 27.)
The Appellant argues that the Examiner does not adequately explain
how or why Kinoshita teaches that its payment gateway 15 receives
information from its location terminal 17. (See Appeal Br. 16–17.) We are
persuaded by this argument because, in Kinoshita, the POS terminal 11
receives information (via a cable connection) from the mobile terminal 17,
and the payment gateway 15 receives information (via a network) from the
POS terminal 11. (See Kinoshita ¶¶ 119, 121, 141, 167–168, Fig. 1.) In
other words, Kinoshita’s payment gateway 15 “does not receive any separate
information from the mobile terminal 17.” (Appeal Br. 16.) As such,
Kinoshita does not appear to teach a location proxy that receives information
from both a POS terminal and a mobile terminal.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent
claims 22 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Rejections V and VII).
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6, 8, 10,
29, 30
§ 103 Wilkes, Crooks,
Brinkman, Ocko
1, 3–6, 8, 10,
29, 30

2 § 103 Wilkes, Crooks,
Brinkman, Ocko,
Li
2
7 § 103 Wilkes, Crooks,
Brinkman, Ocko,
Gould
7
Appeal 2020-002105
Application 14/268,822

11
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
21 § 103 Wilkes, Crooks,
Brinkman, Ocko,
Kinoshita
21
22 § 103 Wilkes, Crooks,
Brinkman, Ocko,
Kinoshita, MCD
22
23–25 § 103 Wilkes, Crooks,
Brinkman, Ocko,
Kinoshita,
Barnett
23–25
26 § 103 Wilkes, Crooks,
Brinkman, Ocko,
Kinoshita,
Karlov
26
27 § 103 Wilkes, Crooks,
Brinkman, Ocko,
Kinoshita,
Karlov, Howe
27
32 § 103 Wilkes, Crooks,
Brinkman, Ocko,
Kinoshita,
Karlov, MCD
32
Overall
Outcome
1–8, 10, 21,
23–26, 29, 30,
32
22, 27

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)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART