Fisher, Michelle Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 13, 20202019003843 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2020) 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. 14/253,648 04/15/2014 Michelle Fisher BLZMP004C52 6127 12120 7590 05/13/2020 Michelle Fisher 2930 Domingo Ave Suite 123 Berkeley, CA 94705 EXAMINER GOYEA, OLUSEGUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3687 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2020 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): mfisher@blazemobile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte MICHELLE FISHER1 _____________ Appeal 2019-003843 Application 14/253,648 Technology Center 3600 ______________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, JASON J. CHUNG, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1, 11, 20–27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 42, 43, 46, 47, 51, 52 and 54– 67, as numbered by the Examiner, are pending, stand rejected, are appealed, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant†to refer to “applicants†as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appeal Brief identifies the inventor, Michelle Fisher, the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appellant argues pro se. See Appeal Br. 41. Appeal 2019-003843 Application 14/253,648 2 Claims on Appeal Appellant states the: The application was originally filed with claims 1–20. Claims 1–20 remain pending and all stand rejected and this is an appeal of rejected Claims 1-20. Claims 2–10 and 12–19 have been cancelled and replaced by new claims 21–27, 29–30, 32–33, 37–38, 42–43, 46–47, 51–52, and 54–67. Claims 1–67 are reproduced and attached in the Claims Appendix. Appeal Br. 2 (Section III STATUS OF THE CLAIMS). The Examiner finds: This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 02/06/2018. Currently, claims 1, 11, 20–27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 42, 43, 46, 47, 51, 52 and 54–67 are pending. Claims 1, 11, 20, 29, 32, 38, 47, 52, 54, 56, 58, 61, 63 and 65 have been amended. Claims 2–10, 12–19, 28, 31, 34–36, 39–41, 44, 45, 48–50 and 53 have been cancelled. Final Act. 2–3 (Status of Claims). We adopt the Examiner’s numbering of the claims. RELATED APPEALS AND TRIALS Appellant declares the present Application is related to the Appeal of US Patent Application No. 15/076,578 (the “’578 Applicationâ€). Appeal Br. 2. The present Panel of the Board heard the appeal of the ’578 Application in Appeal 2019-000039 wherein we Reversed the rejection of all pending claims. Appeal 2019-003843 Application 14/253,648 3 INVENTION Summary of the Invention The invention is directed to a “method and system for receiving digital artifacts from a management server.†See Abstract. Claims Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below with formatting added for clarity: 1. A method for processing a transaction, comprising: receiving, at a transaction server, a payment method that corresponds to an identification code associated with a user from a remote management server, wherein prior to receiving the payment method that corresponds to the identification code associated with the user from the remote management server, the remote management server sends a list of products to a non-browser based application generated screen generated by a non-browser based application with a graphical user interface that is downloaded and installed on a mobile device for display with a mobile device display of the mobile device, wherein the non-browser based application only generates a non-browser based application generated screen, the non-browser based application generated screen corresponding to a specific screen or area of the non-browser based application, the mobile device including the mobile device display, a mobile device processor, a mobile device wireless radio transceiver configured to support voice and data interactions through a first wireless communication channel, and a mobile device wireless fidelity (Wi- Fi) transceiver, receives, at the non-browser based application generated screen, an identification of one or more products selected from the list of products from the non-browser based application generated screen, wherein the non-browser based application generated screen receives the identification of the one or more products selected from the list of products through user input via the mobile device display; Appeal 2019-003843 Application 14/253,648 4 receives a transaction purchase request from a user from the non- browser based application generated screen, wherein the non- browser based application generated screen receives the transaction purchase request via the mobile device display of the mobile device; receives user input login information including an identification code associated with the user from the non-browser based application generated screen, wherein the non-browser based application generated screen stored on the mobile device receives the user input login information via a mobile device display of the mobile device; upon receipt of the user input login information, authenticating, at the remote management server, the user associated with the user input login information; transmits the payment method that corresponds to the identification code associated with the user to the transaction server; and processing, at the transaction server, the transaction using the payment method; and sending, from the transaction server, a transaction verification to the remote management server, wherein the transaction verification indicates that the transaction has processed and further wherein after receiving the transaction verification, the remote management server downloads the one or more products to the mobile device. Appeal 2019-003843 Application 14/253,648 5 REJECTIONS2 AT ISSUE3 References Name Publication Number Date Gobburu US 2002/0060246 A1 May 23, 2002 Clisham US 2004/0168052 A1 Aug. 26, 2004 Gautier US 2005/0021478 A1 Jan. 27, 2005 Yan US 2005/0240484 A1 Oct. 27, 2005 Tevanian, Jr. US 2006/0100924 A1 May 11, 2006 Roever US 2006/0170759 A1 Aug. 3, 2006 Hotelling US 2006/0235864 A1 Oct. 19, 2006 Rackley US 2008/0010191 A1 Jan. 10, 2008 Rejections 1. The rejection of claims 58 and 65 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement was withdrawn. See Final Act. 4–6; see also Advisory Action (mailed May 10, 2018). 2 The Application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Final Act. 2. 3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed August 21, 2018 (“Appeal Br.â€); the Reply Brief filed April 15, 2019 (“Reply Br.â€); the Final Office Action mailed February 23, 2018 (“Final Act.â€); the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 14, 2019 (“Ans.â€); and the Specification filed February 6, 2018, (“Spec.â€). Appeal 2019-003843 Application 14/253,648 6 2. Claims 1, 11, 20–27, 32, 36–39, 41–48, 50–55, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, and 664 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rackley, Gautier, and Hotelling. Final Act. 7–16. 3. Claims 29, 30, and 33 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling, and Tevanian. Final Act. 16–17. 4. Claims 56 and 63 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling, and Roever. Final Act. 17– 18. 5. Claims 57 and 64 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling, and Roever. Final Act. 18– 19. 6. Claims 60 and 67 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling, and Clisham. Final Act. 19–21. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s written description rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, 11, 13–16, 20–24, and 28–45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 4 Claims 1, 11, 20–27, 36, 37, 39, 41–46, 48, and 50–53 are recited both in the header and the body of the rejection. Claims 32, 38, 47, 54, 55, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, and 66 are not recited in the header, but are discussed in the body of the rejection. See Final Act. 12–16 Appeal 2019-003843 Application 14/253,648 7 CLAIMS 1, 11, 20–27, 32, 36–39, 41–48, 50–55, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, AND 66: OBVIOUSNESS OVER RACKLEY, GAUTIER, AND HOTELLING Appellant argues all claims as a group in view of the limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 42. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the section 103 rejections on the basis of illustrative claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.†See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant contends the combination of Rackley, Gautier, and Hotelling fails to teach each element of claim 1. Appeal Br. 15. Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “maintaining a non-browser based application in a mobile device memory.†Claim 1 further recites various steps of “receiving, at the non-browser based application†and “sending from the non-browser based application.†The Examiner finds Rackley teaches, inter alia, “a non-browser based application with a graphical user interface that is downloaded and installed on a mobile device.†Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds Gautier teaches: “the remote management server, sends a list of products to a non-browser based application generated screen generated by a non-browser based application.†Final Act. 10. The Examiner does not apply Hoteling to teach a non-browser based application. Final Act. 10–11. The present Application is related to the Appeal of US Patent Application No. 15/076,578 (the “’578 Applicationâ€). Appeal Br. 2. The present Panel of the Board heard the appeal of the ’578 Application in Appeal 2019-000039 wherein the issue of “receiving, at the non-browser based application†and “sending from the non-browser based application†was presented in view of the present Rackley, Gautier, and Hoteling references. Contrary to the Examiner, in both the prior Appeal 2019-003843 Application 14/253,648 8 ’578, and present ’648 Application, we find each of Rackley, Gautier, and Hotelling teach a browser-based application. Rackley teaches “payee information is input by the user via the Internet- accessible web site†and “[m]obile devices include such items as cellphones and PDAs that are connected for data communications via a wireless network to an MFTS.†Rackley ¶¶ 35, 128. Rackley also teaches “[t]he MFTS is in turn connected to allow remote network access (e.g. Internet access) by users for account setup, configuration, editing, monitoring of transactions, etc.†Id. ¶ 128. Moreover, Rackley explicitly teaches browser-based user access: [a] user interface provides a means of input (allowing a user to send information to a system such as the MFTS) and a means of output (allowing the MFTS system to display information to the user). These inputs and outputs are transported via the Internet and viewed by the users using a web browser program such as Netscape Navigator, Internet Explorer, Firefox, or any other web browsers. Rackley ¶ 164. Similarly, Gautier teaches: the media player 108 can utilize an improved graphical user interface. More particularly, in one embodiment, a window presented on a display device of the client 104, when executing the media player 108, includes an upper window that displays content provided by the media commerce server 102 in a browser-like manner, and a lower window displays content provided by the media commerce server 102 in a typical media player-like manner. Gautier ¶ 54. Gautier further teaches: A network-based media purchase system as recited in claim 25, wherein the first window displays first information provided remotely by said media commerce server in a browser-like manner, Appeal 2019-003843 Application 14/253,648 9 and wherein the second window displays second information in an application-like manner, the second information being provided locally by the client media player program operating on the corresponding client machine or being provided remotely by said media commerce server. Gautier 16 (Claim 26). Hotelling provides similar disclosure: “the music identification service typically also stores the information sent to the mobile phone on-line, which the user may access through a web browser.†Hotelling, ¶ 7. Hotelling further discloses: “[a] user can interact with the GUI elements to browse digital media assets that are available on a remote server for purchase, download.†Hotelling ¶ 56. Thus we find, contrary to the claims, that each of Gautier, Rackley, and Hotelling teaches that a user interacts with the referenced servers using a browser-based application. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 11, 20–27, 32, 36–39, 41–48, 50– 55, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, 66 103 Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling 1, 11, 20–27, 32, 36– 39, 41–48, 50–55, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, 66 29, 30, 33 103 Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling, Tevanian 29, 30, 33 Appeal 2019-003843 Application 14/253,648 10 56, 63 103 Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling, Roever 56, 63 57, 64 103 Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling, Roever 57, 64 60, 67 103 Rackley, Gautier, Hotelling, Clisham 60, 67 Overall Outcome 1, 11, 20–27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 42, 43, 46, 47, 51, 52 and 54–67 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation