Ex Parte Signorelli et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201713365962 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2017) 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. 13/365,962 02/03/2012 Paul D. Signorelli 05-009-Cl 8627 22927 7590 10/03/2017 Walker Innovation Tne EXAMINER Two High Ridge Park Stamford, CT 06905 COLLINS, MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3651 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2017 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): iplegal@patentproperties.com docketing @ finchamdowns. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL D. SIGNORELLI, SIH Y. LEE, PAUL T. BREITENBACH, DANIEL E. TEDESCO, and DEAN P. ALDERUCCI Appeal 2015-003573 Application 13/365,962 Technology Center 3600 Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, BRANDON J. WARNER, and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Paul D. Signorelli et al. (“Appellants”)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5, 7—15, and 17—20, which are all the pending claims, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Pavlic (US 2005/0228720 Al, pub. Oct. 13, 2005). See Appeal Br. 1, 9; Final Act. 5—10. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Inventor Holdings, LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2015-003573 Application 13/365,962 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to “facilitating the sale and distribution of wireless access to a communications network through a vending machine,” where the vending machine “may also be configured to dispense one or more physical products, such as snacks and drinks.” Spec. 17. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method, comprising: receiving, by a vending machine and from a customer, an indication of a product for which a unit is desired to be purchased by the customer from the vending machine; receiving, by a receiver device of the vending machine and from a portable electronic device of the customer, a wireless signal indicative of an account identifier of the customer, transmitting, by the vending machine and in response to the receiving of the wireless signal, an indication of the account identifier of the customer to a remote network device; receiving, by the vending machine in response to the transmitting and from the remote network device, an indication that a payment, by the customer and for the desired unit of the product, is validated; and providing, by the vending machine and in response to the indication of the payment validation, the unit of the product to the customer. ANALYSIS Each of independent claims 1 and 11 recites, in relevant part, a method that includes a step of “receiving, by a receiver device of the vending machine and from a portable electronic device of the customer, a wireless signal indicative of an account identifier of the customer.'1'’ Appeal Br., 2 Appeal 2015-003573 Application 13/365,962 Claims App. (emphasis added). In rejecting the claims, the Examiner finds that Pavlic discloses a method that includes such a step. Final Act. 5, 8 (both citing Pavlic 1 56). Appellants persuasively assert, however, that Pavlic is deficient in disclosing such a receiving step, at least because Pavlic’s method involves a central payment processing center (not the vending machine) receiving any/all customer account information for verification, authentication, and/or reconciliation; the vending machine never receives any such customer account information from any portable electronic device of the customer. Appeal Br. 12; see id. at 11—13; Reply Br. 2—10. In response, the Examiner takes the position that Pavlic’s paragraph 56 discloses an account identifier being transmitted to the vending machine because the transmission data (which is actually from the central payment processing center, albeit via the portable electronic device of the customer) “includes a ‘digital signature.’” Ans. 11; see id. at 8—13. However, we agree with Appellants that this digital signature is no more than verification data; there is no disclosure in Pavlic that it would be “indicative of an account identifier of the customer,” as required by the claims. In short, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Pavlic discloses, either expressly or inherently, a method that includes a step of “receiving, by a receiver device of the vending machine and from a portable electronic device of the customer, a wireless signal indicative of an account identifier of the customer,” as recited in the claims. See Appeal Br. 11—13. 3 Appeal 2015-003573 Application 13/365,962 Accordingly, based on the record before us—because an anticipation rejection requires a finding in a single reference of each and every limitation as set forth in the claims—we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, and their associated dependent claims 2—5, 7—10, 12—15, and 17—20, as anticipated by Pavlic.2 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5, 7—15, and 17—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Pavlic. REVERSED 2 We note that any consideration of what one of ordinary skill in the art may deem obvious regarding possible changes to how data is transmitted in Pavlic’s payment method is immaterial to the anticipation rejection made here and before us for review. We further note that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is a review body, rather than a place of initial examination, and we therefore decline to make a determination of what one of ordinary skill in the art may conclude; rather, we leave it to the Examiner to determine the appropriateness of any further course of action based on such a conclusion should there be further prosecution of this application. See Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075-77 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation