Google LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 12, 2021

2021003218 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2021)

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.
14/507,770 10/06/2014 Amir Fish GGLC-456 8616
100462 7590 08/12/2021
Dority & Manning P.A. and Google LLC
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
EXAMINER
ROBINSON, KITO R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2021 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):
usdocketing@dority-manning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AMIR FISH
____________

Appeal 2021-003218
Application 14/507,770
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 21–40.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google, LLC.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 1–20 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2021-003218
Application 14/507,770

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
“The present disclosure relates generally to determining the identity of
a merchant corresponding to a received merchant identifier, and more
particularly to determining the identity of a merchant associated with a
merchant identifier based on the location of a user device at the time of a
purchase transaction with the merchant.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 are independent. Claim 21, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
21. A computer implemented method to identify actual
identities of previously unknown merchant locations based on
merchant electronic transaction codes and locations of user
devices, comprising, by a merchant identification system:
for each of a plurality of electronic transactions between
a merchant system and a user device:
receiving a transaction record specifying an
electronic transaction code of the merchant, the time of
the transaction, and a data item indicating the user
device, wherein the electronic transaction record does not
directly disclose an actual identity of the merchant at a
location of the transaction;
determining a location of the user device at the
time of the transaction; and
determining a candidate actual identity of the
merchant at the transaction location based on the
determined location; and
upon accumulating a threshold number of matching
determined candidate actual identities for a particular location,
assigning the matching candidate actual identity as the actual
identity of the merchant at the particular location.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2021-003218
Application 14/507,770

3
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 21–40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Howe (US 2015/0051953 A1, pub. Feb. 19, 2015) and
Carlson (US 2012/0094639 A1, pub. Apr. 19, 2012).

ANALYSIS
Claims 21–27
The Examiner finds that Howe discloses most limitations of claim 21.
Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner relies on Carlson as teaching the “upon
accumulating” step. Id. at 5.
Appellant first contends that Howe and Carlson fail to disclose or
suggest the limitation “receiving a transaction record specifying an
electronic transaction code of the merchant . . . wherein the electronic
transaction record does not directly disclose an actual identity of the
merchant at a location of the transaction” (“receiving limitation”). Appeal
Br. 5 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that paragraph 27 of Howe discloses the receiving
limitation. Final Act. 3. This paragraph discloses:
Each transaction data entry 208 may be related to a
payment transaction and include a consumer identifier, a
merchant identifier, and a transaction time and/or date. . . . The
merchant identifier may be a unique value associated with a
merchant (e.g., the merchant 108) involved in the related
payment transaction that may be used to identify the associated
merchant. For example, the merchant identifier may be a
merchant identification number (MID) or other value as will be
apparent to persons having skill in the relevant art.
See Howe ¶ 27 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that “the merchant
identifier in the transaction data entry includes a merchant identification
Appeal 2021-003218
Application 14/507,770

4
number (MID) which is not . . . an actual identity of the merchant.” Final
Act. 3 (emphasis added).
The Examiner explains that the rejection does not rely on the
embodiment in paragraph 28 of Howe, but rather, on the “separate
embodiment” in paragraph 27. Final Act. 3. Appellant notes that paragraph
28 describes, “‘[i]n some embodiments, each transaction data entry 208 may
also include additional transaction data, such as . . . merchant name.’”
Appeal Br. 6 (quoting Howe ¶ 28). Appellant asserts, “the inclusion of
merchant name in the transaction data entry of Howe clearly does not teach
that ‘the electronic transaction record does not directly disclose an actual
identity of the merchant at a location of the transaction,’” as claimed. Id.
Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive. Appellant does not apprise
us of error in the Examiner’s finding that paragraph 27 of Howe discloses
that the “merchant identifier in the transaction data entry includes a
merchant identification number (MID) which is not . . . an actual identity of
the merchant.” Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). We disagree with Appellant
that paragraphs 27 and 28 of Howe do not describe “separate embodiments.”
Appeal Br. 5–6. Paragraph 28 discloses that, “in some embodiments,” each
transaction data entry 208 may also include additional transaction data, such
as merchant name. We interpret this description to mean that, in some
embodiments each data entry 208 may also include a merchant name,
whereas in other embodiments each data entry 208 may not also include a
merchant name. In other words, each data entry 208 is not required to
include merchant name in such other embodiments. Clearly, embodiments
where each data entry 208 includes a merchant name can be considered
different embodiments from embodiments where each data entry does not
Appeal 2021-003218
Application 14/507,770

5
include merchant name. We interpret paragraph 28 as disclosing additional
embodiments to those disclosed in paragraph 27; namely, additional
embodiments where each data entry 208 includes a merchant name. We
agree with the Examiner that such additional embodiments can be
considered as “alternative” embodiments or “option[s].” Ans. 4.
We agree with the Examiner that Howe’s teaching of using
a merchant identifier number as a merchant identifier cannot be ignored.
Ans. 5; see Howe ¶ 27. Indeed, a reference “may be used as evidence of
obviousness under [35 U.S.C.] § 103 for all it fairly suggests to one of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543 (CCPA 1973).
Accordingly, this disclosure can be used as evidence of obviousness.
Appellant also contends that Carlson teaches that “the transaction
message data includes a raw merchant name.” Appeal Br. 6 (citing Carlson
¶ 49). However, the Examiner relies on Howe, not Carlson, for the
receiving limitation. Further, we note paragraph 49 of Carlson discloses,
“[t]ransaction message data describing the merchant involved in the
transaction may include a raw merchant name.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis
added). This does not disclose that the transaction message data must
include a “raw merchant name.” Thus, we disagree with Appellant’s
interpretation.
Second, Appellant contests the Examiner’s finding that Howe
discloses “determining a location of the user device at the time of the
transaction” and “determining a candidate actual identity of the merchant at
the transaction location based on the determined location,” as recited in
claim 21. Appeal Br. 7; see Final Act 5 (citing Howe ¶¶ 23, 46, 52).
Paragraph 52 of Howe discloses:
Appeal 2021-003218
Application 14/507,770

6
In another embodiment, the method 500 may also include
identifying, by the processing device 204, a geo-fence for the
merchant 108 associated with the common merchant identifier
based on the generated boundary map 406. In yet another
embodiment, the method 500 may further include associating,
by the processing device 204, the generated boundary map 406
for the merchant 108 with a name of the merchant 108. In a
further embodiment, the name of the merchant 108 may be
included in at least one of the transaction data entries 208
included in the subset of transaction data entries.
(Emphasis added). Appellant asserts, “Howe only associates the common
merchant identifier, and optionally, the merchant name associated with the
merchant, with the boundary map generated by the processing server 112.”
Appeal Br. 7. We disagree.
Paragraph 46 of Howe discloses:
In step 506, a receiving device (e.g., the receiving unit 202)
may receive, for each transaction data entry 208 in the
identified subset of transaction data entries, a geographic
location (e.g., geographic location 404) of a mobile
communication device (e.g., the mobile device 104) associated
with the respective included consumer identifier temporally
proximal to the respective included transaction time and/or
date.
(Emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that Howe discloses
“determining a location of the user device at the time of the transaction,” as
recited in claim 21. Final Act. 5; Ans. 7.
Paragraph 47 of Howe discloses:
In step 508, a processing device (e.g., the processing unit 204)
may generate a boundary map (e.g., the boundary map 406) for
a merchant (e.g., the merchant 108) associated with the
common merchant identifier based on the geographic locations
404 received for each transaction data entry 208 in the
identified subset of transaction data entries.
Appeal 2021-003218
Application 14/507,770

7
(Emphasis added). Howe discloses generating a boundary map 406 for a
merchant 108 associated with a merchant identifier based on geographic
locations of mobile communication devices for transaction data entries 208,
and associating the generated boundary map 406 with a name of the
merchant 108. Howe ¶¶ 46, 47, 52. We agree that Howe discloses or
suggests “determining a candidate actual identity of the merchant at the
transaction location based on the determined location,” because the
boundary map is generated based on the “determined location” of the mobile
communication devices. Appellant does not explain persuasively why “a
merchant . . . associated with the common merchant identifier based on the
geographic locations 404 received for each transaction data entry 208” is not
“a candidate actual identity of the merchant.” Appeal Br. 7–8; see Howe
¶ 47 (emphasis added).
The Examiner relies on Carlson as teaching the “upon accumulating”
step, and concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to combine Carlson with Howe “to more accurately determine a
new location of a merchant without the need to physically visit the location
or update via human interaction.” Final Act. 4–5. Appellant does not
apprise us of error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 21 as unpatentable over
Howe and Carlson. As Appellant relies on the dependency of claims 22–27
from claim 21 for patentability (Appeal Br. 8), we also sustain the rejection
of claims 22–27 for the same reasons as for claim 21.
Claims 28–40
Claim 28 is directed to “[a] non-transitory computer-readable storage
device having computer-executable program instructions embodied thereon
Appeal 2021-003218
Application 14/507,770

8
that when executed by a computer cause the computer to” perform
operations that are substantially the same as the method steps recited in
claim 21. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). Claim 35 is directed to “[a] system
to identify actual identities of previously unknown merchant locations based
on merchant electronic transaction codes and locations of user devices,”
comprising a processor that causes the system to perform operations that are
substantially the same as the method steps recited in claim 21. Id. at 13
(Claims App.). The Examiner relies on the same findings and reasoning for
claims 28 and 35 as for claim 21. Final Act. 4–6.
Appellant contends that the applied references fail to disclose the
features of claim 28 and claim 35 for the same reasons as for claim 21.
Appeal Br. 8–9. As Appellant does not apprise us of error in the rejection of
claim 21, we sustain the rejection of claims 28 and 35, and dependent claims
29–34 and 36–40, for the same reasons as for claim 21.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–40 103 Howe, Carlson 21–40

Appeal 2021-003218
Application 14/507,770

9
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED