Ex Parte Jentoft

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 8, 2013

11036591 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KEITH JENTOFT
____________________

Appeal 2011-006087
Application 11/036,591
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-006087
Application 11/036,591

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-16, 19 and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.1

BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates, in general, to electronic commerce and,
more particularly, to secure personal transactions using audio-equipped
personal cards (Spec., 1, ll. 14-15).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method for conducting a business transaction involving
personal transaction cards and a financial transaction between a
seller and a buyer, the method comprising:
programming, on a first transaction card, authentication
data and account information for the buyer;
programming, on a second transaction card,
authentication data and account information for the seller;
in connection with the business transaction,
communicating the authentication data and account information
from both the first transaction card and the second transaction
card using sound waves in the form of encoded tones;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed November 22, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
February 22, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
December 22, 2010).
Appeal 2011-006087
Application 11/036,591

3
converting the sound waves from both the first and
second transaction cards to an electronic form of the audio
information representing the authentication data;
authorizing the business transaction as a function of the
authentication data in the electronic form and the financial
transaction; and
sending a receipt for the authorized business transaction
to a mobile device associated with the account information.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1-8, 10-15, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Anati (WO 02/14974 A2, pub. February 21,
2002) in view of Labaton (US 2002/0191765 A1, pub. Dec. 19, 2002) and
further in view Smith (US 6,487,540 B1, iss. Nov. 26, 2002).
Claims 9 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anati in view of Labaton and further in view Smith and
Slater (US 6,098,053, iss. Aug. 1, 2000).

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-8, 10 and 19
We are persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellant’s
argument that none of Anati, Labaton, and Smith discloses or suggests the
use of two personal transaction cards, one card for the seller and one card for
the buyer, programmed with authentication data and account information,
for authenticating a financial transaction between the parties, i.e.,
“programming, on a first transaction card, authentication data and account
information for the buyer” and “programming, on a second transaction card,
authentication data and account information for the seller,” and “authorizing
Appeal 2011-006087
Application 11/036,591

4
the business transaction as a function of the authentication data in the
electronic form and the financial transaction,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br.
5-8 and Reply Br. 4-5). The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper,
and directs our attention to page 4, lines 14-19, page 10, lines 14-15, and
page 13, line 24 through page 14, line 5 of Anati. But we find nothing in the
cited portions of Anati that discloses or suggests the claimed features, as
recited in claim 1.
The discussion at page 4, lines 14-19 of Anati concerns the use of a
transactional card for making an on-line purchase from a website. But Anati
only describes a single (buyer) card 102 and “other input 106,” e.g., a
keyboard or mouse, which may be used to enter additional transactional
information. There is no disclosure or suggestion of programming both a
first transaction card and a second transaction card with authentication data
and account information for authenticating the financial transaction, i.e., the
on-line purchase. There also is no such disclosure or suggestion at page 10,
lines 14-15 of Anati, which only describes that cards can be embossed and
programmed using industry standard processes and equipment at the card
issuer’s discretion.
Anati discloses a different embodiment at page 13, line 24 through
page 14, line 5 involving the use of multiple cards. However, this
embodiment is concerned with permitting two cardholders to use their
respective cards to exchange information, such as contact information, or for
authenticating themselves for conference calls or other private and secure
communications. There is no disclosure or suggestion of “programming, on
a first transaction card, authentication data and account information” for one
of the parties and “programming, on a second transaction card,
Appeal 2011-006087
Application 11/036,591

5
authentication data and account information” for the other party to
authenticate a financial transaction between the parties, as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner also provides no reasoning nor otherwise makes any attempt
to explain why a person skilled in the art would have an apparent reason to
modify an embodiment directed to the authorization of a secure conference
call (or identification of calling parties) to instead involve programming
transaction cards with authentication data and account information to
authenticate a financial transaction between a buyer and a seller.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We also will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 2-8, 10, and 19.

Independent claims 11 and 12 and dependent claims 13-15 and 20
Independent claims 11 and 12 include language substantially similar
to claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to
claim 1. We also will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 13-15 and 20.

Dependent claims 9 and 16
Claims 9 and 16 depend, directly or indirectly, from independent
claims 1 and 12, respectively. The Examiner has not established on this
record that any of Labaton, Smith, and Slater cures the deficiency of Anati
discussed above. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 9 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2011-006087
Application 11/036,591

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.

REVERSED

mls