MASTERCARD ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 24, 2021

2020003442 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 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.
15/050,575 02/23/2016 Philip Wei Ping YEN 0076412-000616 2314
125578 7590 06/24/2021
MASTERCARD
C/O Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
1737 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314-2727
EXAMINER
OBEID, MAMON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3699
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2021 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):
ADIPDOC1@BIPC.com
charles.wieland@bipc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte PHILIP WEI PING YEN, HARJENDER SINGH,
MICHIHIKO YODEN, SYAM SASIDHARAN NAIR, and
PEI LING LEE1
________________

Appeal 2020-003442
Application 15/050,575
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, 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 1–7, 9, 10, 13, 17–19. Appeal Br. 2. Claims 8, 11, 12,
14–16, and 21–26 are withdrawn from consideration. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Board conducts a limited de novo
review of 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).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Mastercard Asia Pacific PTE. LTD as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief filed September 23, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) 2.
Appeal 2020-003442
Application 15/050,575
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
[T]here is provided a method for enabling a communication link
over which transaction data is transmitted between a mobile
terminal and a receiving terminal, the method comprising:
storing in a memory at the mobile terminal, the receiving
terminal and a server administering the communication link, a
generated unique identifier, the unique identifier used to
facilitate the enablement of the communication link; creating a
storage slot at the server administering the communication link,
the storage slot being assigned the unique identifier and the
storage slot used to store the transaction data; and enabling the
communication link in response to the creation of the storage
slot, wherein the communication link is utilised by both the
mobile terminal and the receiving terminal by referencing the
unique identifier to the server.
Spec., Abstr.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with disputed claim language
emphasized, illustrates the subject matter of the appealed claims:
1. A method for enabling a communication link between a
mobile terminal and a receiving terminal over which transaction
data associated with a transaction is transmitted, the method
comprising:
generating, by one of the mobile terminal, the receiving
terminal and a server, a unique identifier;
storing, in a memory, at each of (i) the mobile terminal,
(ii) the receiving terminal and (iii) a server administering the
communication link, the unique identifier;
creating a storage slot at the server administering the
communication link, wherein the storage slot is assigned the
unique identifier, stores at least a portion of the transaction data,
and indicates that a channel is allocated for the communication
link between the mobile terminal and the receiving terminal;
in response to the creation of the storage slot, enabling, by
the server, communication via the channel allocated for the
Appeal 2020-003442
Application 15/050,575
3
communication link, of the transaction data between the mobile
terminal and the receiving terminal, wherein the communication
channel is located and subsequently utilised by both the mobile
terminal and the receiving terminal by referencing the unique
identifier to the server,
upon completion of the transaction, deleting, by the server,
the storage slot, and
transmitting, by the server, to the receiving device, a
message indicating that the storage slot has been deleted.

STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 13, and 17–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over the combined teachings of Youssefian
(US 2014/0208384 A1; published July 24, 2014) and Boyer
(US 2012/0284637 A1; published Nov. 8, 2012). Final Action mailed
Apr. 11, 2019 (“Final Act.”) 2–8.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Youssefian, Boyer, and Rawat
(US 2012/0303435 A1; published Nov. 29, 2012). Final Act. 8–9.

DETERMINATIONS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Youssefian discloses most of the limitations
of claim 1 and relies on Boyer for teaching the final limitation of
“transmitting, by the server, to the receiving device, a message indicating
that the storage slot has been deleted.” Final Act. 2–4.
More specifically, the Examiner determines that Youssefian discloses
creating a “storage slot,” as claimed, by virtue of storing data records in
memory. Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that Youssefian’s data record, or
Appeal 2020-003442
Application 15/050,575
4
storage slot, is assigned a unique identifier, stores at least a portion of the
transaction data, and indicates that a channel is allocated for the
communication link between the mobile terminal and the receiving terminal,
as claimed. Id. at 3 (citing Youssefian ¶¶ 20, 62, 66, 67, 70, 75, 80, 106;
Fig. 1). The Examiner reiterates that Youssefian discloses a storage slot, as
claimed, because Youssefian discloses “a data record having a unique
identifier and said data record includes/stores transaction data.” Examiner’s
Answer mailed February 3, 2020 (“Ans.”) 6, (citing Youssefian ¶¶ 20, 62,
66–67, 70, 75, 80, 106, Fig. 1) (emphasis omitted).
Appellant argues that Youssefian does not disclose creating a storage
slot, as recited in the claims. Appeal Br. 6. More specifically, Appellant
contends that none of the cited portions of Youssefian disclose or reasonably
suggest that the stored content, itself, indicates a channel is allocated for a
communication link. Reply Brief filed April 2, 2020 (“Reply Br.”) 5.

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. We assume arguendo that
generally it is reasonable to interpret the claim term “storage slot” as reading
on Youssefian’s disclosed storage record. But the Examiner has not
sufficiently explained where Youssefian teaches or suggests that the storage
record that stores the transaction data also contains an indication that a
channel is allocated for the communication link between the mobile terminal
and the receiving terminal, as claimed.
We, therefore, reverse the obviousness rejection of the independent
claim 1 and also the rejection of claims 2–7, 9, 10, 13, and 17–19, which
depend from claim 1.
Appeal 2020-003442
Application 15/050,575
5
With respect to the remaining obviousness rejection of dependent
claim 20, the Examiner does not rely on the additionally cited reference,
Rawat, to cure the deficiency noted above in relation to the rejection of
claim 1. Final Act. 8–9. We, therefore, reverse the obviousness rejection of
claim 20 for the same reasons set forth in relation to claim 1.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9, 10, 13,
17–19
103 Youssefian,
Boyer
1–7, 9, 10,
13, 17–19
20 103 Youssefian,
Boyer, Rawat
20
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 9, 10,
13, 17–20