Ex Parte Belamant

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2018

12515058 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2018)

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.
12/515,058 12/15/2009 Serge Christian Pierre Belamant ADMS:003US 5995
26263 7590
DENTONS US LLP
P.O. BOX 061080
CHICAGO, IL 60606-1080
02/26/2018 EXAMINER
NORMAN, SAMICA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3696
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SERGE CHRISTIAN PIERRE BELAMANT
Appeal 2016-0084421
Application 12/515,05 82
Technology Center 3600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BETH Z. SHAW, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 The real party in interest is NET1UEPS Technologies Inc. App. Br. 1.
2 Related Appeal 2016-008348 (U.S. Patent Application No. 13/774,804)
is a divisional application of this application on appeal. Id. This appeal and
its related appeal are directed to the same underlying invention and issues.
These appeals are decided concurrently.
Appeal 2016-008442
Application 12/515,058
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 61—66, 68—72, 74—80, and 82—110,
constituting all claims pending in the current application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Claims 61 and 63 are representative (emphasis and formatting added)
61. A financial transaction number generator including[:]
an electronic processing device,
a memory unit including a predetermined encryption
algorithm,
an input device operable by a transactor for inputting a
request for a simulated primary account number, and
a display for displaying the simulated primary account
number,
wherein the financial transaction number generator is
arranged such that, in use, an encrypted unique transaction
number is generated that simulates a conventional credit or debit
card primary account number and that incorporates an account
number of the transactor which is extractable by a designated
financial institution processing facility.
63. The financial transaction number generator of claim 61, by
means of which a string of numerals is generatable,
the number thereof being in accordance with a
conventional protocol, and
an initial predetermined number thereof being a bank
identification number for identifying a designated financial
institution at which the transaction will be approved and which
will be responsible for payment of the transaction amount.
2
Appeal 2016-008442
Application 12/515,058
Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 61—66, 68—72, 74—80, and 82—110
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.3 Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects the claims herein on the same basis as the
rejection of the claims in related divisional application 13/774,804 on appeal
as 2016-008348. The arguments Appellant presents in this appeal are the
same arguments presented in 2016-008348. We reach the same results
herein for the reasons we set forth in our decision directed to 2016-008348.
We incorporate that decision here in full.
CONCLUSION
Because Appellant’s claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract
concept and do not recite something “significantly more” under the second
prong of the Alice analysis, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject
matter in light of Alice and its progeny.
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 61—66, 68—72, 74—80,
and 82—110 und 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject
matter.
3 We select claim 61 as representative. Separate patentability is not argued
for claims 62—66, 68—72, 74—80, and 82—110. Except for our ultimate
decision, claim 61 is not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal 2016-008442
Application 12/515,058
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 61—66, 68—72, 74—80, and
82—110 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
4