Ex Parte Marcus

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2019

12950103 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/950, 103 11/19/2010
28062 7590 01/30/2019
BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKARLLC
50 LOCUST A VENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
Steven Marcus
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
L07.013 7075
EXAMINER
SCHMUCKER, MICHAEL W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3681
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2019 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):
Martin@BMTP A TENT.COM
szpara@bmtpatent.com
colabella@bmtpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Steven Marcus 1
Appeal2017-003371
Application 12/950, 103
Technology Center 3600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-12, 15, 16, 26, 29, and 30. App. Br. 2.
Claims 2, 4, 13, 14, 15-25, 27, and 28 have been canceled. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Mobisave LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal
Brief filed June 29, 2016 ("App. Br.") 2.
Appeal2017-003371
Application 12/950, 103
THE INVENTION
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
A proof-of-performance verification system may include
a receipt processing facility that receives a receipt image,
wherein the receipt processing facility optionally enhances the
receipt, converts the receipt image to text, and matches the text
to a product or service description in accordance with a
terminology database, a proof processor that electronically
matches a user-selected reward offer against the product or
service description to facilitate offer redemption, and at least one
of a payment facility that distributes the offer redemption funds
and a rewards facility that communicates incentive rewards to a
central location. Related user interfaces, applications, and
computer program products are disclosed.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with modified formatting,
illustrates the claimed invention:
1. A proof-of-performance verification system for providing
purchase incentives to customers over a computerized
telecommunications-based system utilizing electronic
transmission of images of paper purchase receipts, the system
compnsmg:
a selected-offers storage facility, storing a plurality of reward
offers selected by a registered user of the verification system,
each of said selected reward offers being selected at a respective
time of selection;
a receipt processing facility that receives a receipt image, the
receipt image being an image representing a paper receipt issued
to the registered user in a product or service purchase transaction
as a record of said transaction, the receipt processing facility
being operative to convert the receipt image to a text
representation of the receipt image, and to match the text
representation of the receipt image to a product or service
description maintained in a terminology database, the image
having been captured by the registered user via an imaging
2
Appeal2017-003371
Application 12/950, 103
facility of a handheld device, the receipt image including a
representation of a date and time of the purchase transaction; the
receipt processing facility receiving, in association with said
receipt image, device-specific information that identifies said
handheld device, the device-specific information associated with
the registered user; the receipt processing facility identifying said
registered user from the device-specific information;
a proof processor that electronically matches one of said stored
reward offers selected by the identified registered user against
the product or service description to facilitate offer redemption,
the proof processor verifying that the date and time of the
purchase transaction as represented by the received image is later
than the respective time of selection of the matched one of said
stored reward offers selected by the identified registered user;
said proof processor informing the identified registered user of
all offers matched to the receipt image;
said proof processor receiving an indication from the identified
registered user as to at least one selected offer that should have
been matched to the receipt image but was not matched to the
receipt image, said indication including an identification of a
receipt item in the receipt image that should have been matched
to one of said at least one selected offer;
said proof processor including a database of images of paper
purchase receipts;
at least one of-1:J
a payment facility that distributes the offer redemption
funds; and
a rewards facility that communicates incentive rewards to
a central location;
said proof processor further operative to:
identify a retail store that issued the paper receipt; and
detect a font and/or printed art element in the paper receipt
as represented in the receipt image to ensure validation
3
Appeal2017-003371
Application 12/950, 103
against a known font and/or printed art element utilized by
the identified retail store.
App. Br. 20-21 (Claims Appendix).
Independent claim 11 recites a computer implemented method of
similar scope.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5-12, 15, 16, 26, 29, and 30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final
Act. 3-5. 2
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11, 15, 16, 27, 29, and 30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the following five references:
Hadjigeorgis (US 2002/0152118 Al; published Oct. 17, 2002);
Deatherage (US 2004/0107135 Al; published June 3, 2004);
Chellapilla (US 2004/0181749 Al; published Sept. 16, 2004);
Tumminaro (US 2007 /0255653 Al; published Nov. 1, 2007); and
Vawter (US 2008/0035724 Al; published Feb. 14, 2008).
Final Act. 6-32.
Claims 9, 10, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Hadjigeorgis, Deatherage, Chellapilla, Tumminaro,
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellant's arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above-mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
February 2, 2016 ("Final Act."); the Examiner's Answer mailed
November 17, 2016 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed December 29, 2016
("Reply Br.").
4
Appeal2017-003371
Application 12/950, 103
Vawter, and Solomon (US 7,120,591 Bl; issued Oct. 10, 2006). Final
Act. 32-36.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Hadjigeorgis, Deatherage, Chellapilla, Tumminaro,
Vawter, and Thompson (US 2002/0103834 Al; published Aug. 1, 2002).
Final Act. 36-37.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Hadjigeorgis, Deatherage, Chellapilla, Tumminaro,
Vawter, and Kondo (US 2009/0324135 Al; published Dec. 31, 2009). Final
Act. 37-38.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
THE PATENT-INELIGIBILITY REJECTION
Determinations and Contentions
The Examiner determines that the claims "are directed towards the
concept [ ofJ electronic coupon redemption and verification" and that
"[ c ]oupon redemption is [a] fundamental financial principle of debiting and
crediting accounts and [is] a simple series of mathematical formulations
and/or steps to organiz[e] what a human could do with the same information
(human activity)." Final Act. 3. The Examiner further determines that steps
of "targeting advertising to an individual ... is a fundamental economic
practice." Id. at 5. The Examiner determines that the steps of retrieving and
manipulating data constitute an abstract idea. Id. As such, the Examiner
determines that the claims are drawn to an abstract idea. Id. at 3.
5
Appeal2017-003371
Application 12/950, 103
The Examiner additionally determines that the claims do not recite
significantly more than an abstract idea "because the claims do not recite an
improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the
functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond
generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological
environment." Id. The Examiner determines that the claim limitations are
performed by a generically recited computer or processor performing
generic computer functions that were well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known in the industry. Id. at 3--4.
In relation to the final limitation of claim 1, the Examiner reasons that
the language "said proof processor further operative to: ... detect a font
and/or printed art element in the paper receipt as represented in the receipt
image to ensure validation against a known font and/or printed art element
utilized by the identified retail store" ("the printed-art-validation limitation")
is directed to an "abstract idea[] similar to 'collecting and comparing known
information' (Classen) and 'comparing new and stored information and
using rules to identify options' (SmartGene)." 3
Appellant argues that the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject
matter because the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and because the
claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea. App. Br. 9--13; Reply
3 Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) supports the proposition that "methods that simply collect and
compare data, without applying the data in a step of the overall method, may
fail to traverse the§ 101 filter." Id. at 1067.
SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA, 555 F. App 'x
950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) supports the proposition that merely "comparing new
and stored information and using rules to identify ... options" does not save
an otherwise abstract claim. Id. at 955.
6
Appeal2017-003371
Application 12/950, 103
Br. 2---6. For example, Appellant argues "the claims on appeal, in all their
complexity, are concerned with practical, tangible improvements in user
access to and interaction with a computerized electronic off er redemption
system." Reply Br. 4.
In relation to the printed-art-validation limitation, Appellant argues
the invention as recited in claim 1 combats [the] problem [ of
counterfeited paper receipts] with unconventional steps, namely
identifying the retail store that issued the receipt ( from [ optical
character recognition (OCR)] applied to the submitted receipt
image), and then identifying a font and/or printed art element in
the paper receipt to [ e ]nsure validation against a known font/art
element used by the identified retail store.
App. Br. 12.
Principles of Law
A. SECTION 101
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) and
Alice. 573 U.S. at 217-18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75-77). In accordance
with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is "directed
to." See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are
drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party
7
Appeal2017-003371
Application 12/950, 103
to mitigate settlement risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611
(2010) ("Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners' application explain the basic concept
of hedging, or protecting against risk.").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219--20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192
( 1981) ); "tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267---68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 ("We
view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment." Id. ( citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
8
Appeal2017-003371
Application 12/950, 103
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted).
"A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to
ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
"[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id.
B. USPTO SECTION l O l GUIDANCE
The United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO" or "the
Office") recently published revised guidance on the application of§ 101.
USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Memorandum" or "Office Guidance"). Under
that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites the following:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)). 4
4 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be evaluated
properly under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of the Office guidance). Solely for
9
Appeal2017-003371
Application 12/950, 103
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
"well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
For the sake of argument, we agree with the Examiner that the claims
are directed to "electronic coupon redemption and verification," which
reasonably may be characterized as a combination of abstract ideas
including fundamental economic practices, commercial and legal
interactions, advertising, marketing, and sales activities, and mental
processes, such as forming an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea ... to another abstract idea ... does
not render the claim non-abstract."); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric
Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent-ineligible claims
were directed to a combination of abstract ideas).
Even so, the Examiner provides insufficient evidence that the claims
fail to either sufficiently integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application or recite significantly more than an abstract idea. More
specifically, the Examiner has not established that the proof processor that
purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the Office, we evaluate
this inquiry under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of the Office guidance).
10
Appeal2017-003371
Application 12/950, 103
performs the printed-art-validation limitation merely is a generically recited
computer performing generic computer functions that were well-understood,
routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
To be sure, computers that simply collect and compare data, without
more, generally do not add significantly more to an abstract idea. E.g.,
Classen Immunotherapies, 659 F .3d at 1067. Moreover, the use of scanners
and optical character recognition software was well known at the time of the
invention. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v Wells Fargo
Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("[Content
Extraction and Transmission] conceded at oral argument that the use of a
scanner or other digitizing device to extract data from a document was well-
known at the time of filing [in 1991 ], as was the ability of computers to
translate the shapes on a physical page into typeface characters").
However, claim 1 goes beyond merely comparing input data in a
conventional manner or performing scan and OCR operations on a printed
receipt. The proof processor of claim 1 first performs scan and OCR
operations on a printed receipt, and then analyzes the visual representation
of the receipt to authenticate the image against a known font or printed art
element to ensure validity. That is, the claimed proof processor does not
merely recognize that the printed receipt displays a charge of $19.95, for
example, using conventional OCR technology. The claimed proof processor
additionally determines, for example, that the recognized charge of $19 .95 is
printed in a font that is unique to or consistent with the font used by a
specified retail store. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 46-4 7.
The Examiner has provided insufficient evidence or reasoning to meet
the burden of showing that this claimed functionality does not entail an
11
Appeal2017-003371
Application 12/950, 103
improvement to conventional OCR technology beyond the abstract idea. As
such, the Examiner has not established that the claim fails to integrate the
purported abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. We likewise do not sustain that rejection of
claims 3, 5-10, 12, 15, 16, 26, 29, and 30, which depend from claims 1
and 11.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Findings and Contentions
The Examiner finds that Hadjigeorgis discloses "[a] proof-of-
performance verification system for providing purchase incentives to
customers over a computerized telecommunications-based system utilizing
electronic transmission of images of paper purchase receipts" (Final Act. 6)
( emphasis omitted) and that this system teaches most of the limitations of
independent claim 1. Id. at 6-13. The Examiner finds that "Hadjigeorgis
does not appear to specify checking dates/times for verification," but that it
was well known that coupons and rebates have expiration dates. Id. at 13.
The Examiner relies on Deatherage for teaching "a selected-offers
storage facility, storing a plurality of reward offers selected by a registered
user of the verification system, each of said selected reward offers being
selected at a respective time of selection" and that the coupon has to be
selected prior to use, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 14. The Examiner also
relies on Deatherage for teaching notifying users of non-matched offers. Id.
at 15-17.
12
Appeal2017-003371
Application 12/950, 103
The Examiner further finds that Hadjigeorgis and Deatherage do not
teach identifying non-matched offers by the consumer. But the Examiner
determines that "it [was] old and well known for a consumer to identify on a
receipt and bring it to the proper entities['] attention that a discount was not
applied so that the consumer can receive [his or her] discount." Id. at 17-18.
The Examiner relies on Chellapilla for teaching a receipt processing
facility that converts the receipt image to text. Id. at 18-21. The Examiner
relies on Tumminaro for teaching "a handheld device that is a phone and
identifying that device by the phone number in the rebate/ coupon/payment
process." Id. at 21; see also id. at 21-22.
The Examiner finds that "Hadjigeorgis does not appear to specify
validation of the receipt/transaction via font and/or printed art element,"
(id. at 22), but relies on Vawter for teaching this feature:
Vawter teaches authenticating the transaction via
merchant identifier and/or printed art (watermark) in at least
paragraph 0054 where it mentions, "[ a ]uthentication
information 355 may include information related to the
authentication, authorization, validation, and/or identification of
a user and/or device (e.g., terminal 10, register 140, etc.) in
system 100. Authentication information 355 may include a user
name, password, personal identification number (PIN), token,
secure identification (secure ID) value, certificate, watermark,
merchant identifier, transaction identifier, code ( e.g., a script),
etc."
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to modify the electronic data
verification method taught by Hadjigeorgis by validating the
transaction/receipt as taught by Vawter in order [to] ensure
validation of the transaction.
Id. ( emphasis added).
13
Appeal2017-003371
Application 12/950, 103
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner errs in relying upon
Vawter' s teaching of a watermark because
it is apparent from the context that the "watermark" that is
mentioned in Vawter is a digital security element, and has
nothing to do with a receipt or other piece of paper. Although a
paper receipt is shown in FIG. 7B of the reference, the
"watermark" passage cited by the Examiner has nothing to do
with the paper receipt of FIG. 7B.
App. Br. 15.
Appellant further urges
even if a paper watermark were present in Vawter, that would
not be the same as [ the claimed] printed art element, because a
paper watermark is formed in the fabric of the paper and is not
printed! Perhaps it is also worth mentioning that in the rebate
system recited in considerable detail in claim 1, it is highly
doubtful that the scanned image of a paper receipt would or could
reproduce a watermark (if present) in the paper stock on which
the paper receipt was printed. Thus even if a paper watermark
were an element in Vawter, it would not provide the functionality
recited in claim 1 if introduced into the incentive system of
claim 1.
Id. at 16.
In response, the Examiner further explains the reasoning underpinning
the rejection:
Vawter teaches getting watermark[ s] from a document and
watermarks are able to be scanned and can be digitized"
(Ans. 13) because "watermarks ... can be printed and would be
able to be scanned. Anyone that has read a document with
["Confidential" or "Preliminary"] in the background knows that
any copies made will also bear the same watermark, which
means the watermark is able to be scanned and therefore can be
digitized."
Ans. 11-12.
14
Appeal2017-003371
Application 12/950, 103
Appellant replies on this point by again arguing that when read in
context, it is clear that paragraph 54 of Vawter discusses a digital
watermark, and this digital watermark is of no relevance to the claimed
"printed art element." Reply Br. 8.
Analysis
Vawter describes that invention as
[a] managed service [that] include[s] first logic to provide
authentication information to a device on behalf of a mobile
terminal to identify the mobile terminal for a near field transaction
with the device, and receive transaction information from the
device, where the transaction information is produced by the
device on behalf of the mobile terminal. The first logic may
further receive user information via the mobile terminal, the user
information identifying characteristics of a user of the mobile
terminal.
Vawter, Abstract.
Vawter goes on to describe the invention, as follows:
Techniques described herein may provide entities with
accurate information about transactions. For example, a
consumer may use a cell phone to establish a secure
communication session with a cash register at a store. The cell
phone may receive information contained in the cash register
receipt via the wireless link, and the cash register may send the
transaction information to a server.
Id. ,I 19.
"Transaction" may refer to an exchange of information
between two parties, such as a customer and a retailer. A
transaction may include a purchase, an exchange, a credit,
request for services, etc. In one implementation, a transaction
may include an exchange of monetary information ( e.g.,
electronic money, credit card information, automated teller
machine (ATM) information, etc.). In another implementation,
a transaction may include an exchange of mined consumer data,
15
Appeal2017-003371
Application 12/950, 103
where the consumer data is related to one or more purchasing
transactions.
Id. ,I 23.
In one implementation, server 130 may provide a service,
such as a managed service, to other devices in system 100, such
as [mobile] terminal 110 and/or enterprise 150. For example,
server 130 may provide communication services to [mobile]
terminal 110, data mining services to enterprise and/ or third party
170, transaction storage services to enterprise 150 and/or
[mobile] terminal 110, etc.
Id. ,I 30.
Figure 3 of Vawter depicts authorization information 355 being
stored in storage module 350 of Server 130. Id. Fig. 3. As noted by
the Examiner (Final Act. 22), Vawter describes the authentication
information as follows:
Authentication information 355 may include information
related to the authentication, authorization, validation, and/or
identification of a user and/or device (e.g., terminal [110],
register 140, etc.) in system 100. Authentication information 355
may include a user name, password, personal identification
number (PIN), token, secure identification (secure ID) value,
certificate, watermark, merchant identifier, transaction identifier,
code (e.g., a script), etc.
Vawter ,r 54 ( emphasis added).
Read as a whole, we understand Vawter to be storing digital
information in the storage module 350. We agree with Appellant that one of
ordinary skill would understand Vawter's paragraph 54 as discussing digital
watermarks for authenticating transmitted digital data. The Examiner does
not provide a sufficient basis to support the finding that Vawter transmits
images of paper receipts with visual watermarks, much less provide support
for finding that Vawter detects a visual watermark represented on a paper
16
Appeal2017-003371
Application 12/950, 103
receipt image to ensure validation against a known printed art element, as
recited by independent claim 1.
We therefore do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1 over
Hadjigeorgis, Deatherage, Chellapilla, Tumminaro, and Vawter or that
rejection of independent claim 11, which recites similar language. We
likewise do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 3, 5-8, 15, 16,
27, 29, and 30, which depend from independent claims 1 and 11.
With respect to the remaining rejections of claims 9, 10, 12, 14, and
26, the Examiner does not rely on any of the additionally cited references,
Solomon, Thompson, and Kondo, to cure this deficiency. See Final Act. 32-
38. Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of these
claims for the reasons set forth in relation to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-12, 15, 16, 26, 29,
and 30 is reversed.
REVERSED
17