Ex Parte Finn

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

12029489 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/029,489 02/12/2008
109971 7590 03/28/2016
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP- Toshiba TGCS
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter George Finn
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
G511566USAA 8925
EXAMINER
LAGOR, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2016 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):
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
P AIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER GEORGE FINN
Appeal2014-007979
Application 12/029,489
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14--16, 19, and 21. 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, and 20 were previously cancelled.
Appeal2014-007979
Application 12/029,489
INVENTION
The invention is directed to consolidation, selection, and secure
identification in payment processing at point-of-sale (POS) terminals.
(Spec. 1 and 4.) Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A method of processing payment options, the steps
compnsmg:
a) creating a user account for a user;
b) receiving payment options data entered by said user;
c) verifying said payment options data with an issuer of
each payment options;
d) upon successfully verifying said payments options data,
storing said payment options data into a central database, said
payment options data being associated with said user account for
said user, and said central database being configured such that
said stored payment options data is retrievable from a remote
access merchant device;
e) receiving a request over a secure communication
network from said remote access merchant device to access said
stored payment options data for said user in said central database;
t) upon verifying an identity of said user attempting to
access said central database, retrieving, from said central
database, on said remote access merchant device, a list of
available payment options based on said user account for said
user;
g) displaying on said remote access merchant device said
list of available payment options, such that said list of available
payment options is selectable by said user from said remote
access merchant device, wherein said list of available payment
options is modified based upon an identity of said remote access
merchant device;
h) receiving a selection of one of said list of available
payment options; and
i) providing additional payment options data, to said
remote access merchant device which retrieved said stored
payment options data, sufficient to process a payment from said
remote access merchant device, wherein said additional payment
options data comprises card number data and verification code
2
Appeal2014-007979
Application 12/029,489
data, and wherein said card number data and said verification
code data are retrieved from said central database upon receiving
said selection of one of said list of available payment options.
REFERENCES
Pare US 6,269 ,348 B 1 July 31, 2001
Takatori US 2003/0078844 Al Apr. 24, 2003
Ammermann US 2005/0256802 Al Nov. 17, 2005
Wah US 2006/0085333 Al Apr. 20, 2006
Hughes US 2006/0097987 Al May 11, 2006
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Wah, Ammermann, and Takatori.
(Ans. 2.)
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of \X/ ah, 1A1mmermann, and Hughes.
(Ans. 9.)
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Wah, Ammermann, and Pare. (Ans.
11.)
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Wah,
Ammermann, and Takatori teaches or suggests "i) providing additional
payment options data, to said remote access merchant device which retrieved
said stored payment options data, sufficient to process a payment from said
remote access merchant device, wherein said additional payment options
3
Appeal2014-007979
Application 12/029,489
data comprises card number data and verification code data" as recited in
independent claims 1, 8, and 15?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14--16, 19, and 21
We select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims comprising
claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14--16, 19, and 21 as Appellant has not argued any of
the other claims in this group with particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "i) providing additional payment options
data, to said remote access merchant device which retrieved said stored
payment options data, sufficient to process a payment from said remote
access merchant device, wherein said additional payment options data
comprises card number data and verification code data."
The Examiner finds Takatori teaches the additional payment options
data in paragraphs 75-80. (Final Act. 7 (the billing account information
22).)
Appellant argues the combination of Wah and Takatori fails to teach
claim 1 's limitation of "providing additional payment options data, to said
remote access merchant device," where "said additional payment options
data comprises card number data and verification code data." (App. Br. 11.)
Appellant further argues the combination of Wah and Takatori fails to teach
the "additional payment options data" is data that is "sufficient to process a
payment from said remote access merchant device." (App. Br. 12.)
Specifically, Appellant argues "while Takatori teaches the control server
accessing a database, the control server does not transmit retrieved
4
Appeal2014-007979
Application 12/029,489
information back to the POS terminal for further processing." (App. Br. 12
(emphasis omitted).)
The Examiner finds Takatori's paragraph 90 teaches "it is also
suitable that the control server 3 transmits the plural pieces of billing
account information ... to the portable terminal device 1 via the POS
terminal 2." (Ans. 14.) We agree with the Examiner that transmitting the
billing account information to the portable terminal via the POS terminal is
within the scope of "providing additional payment options data, to said
remote access merchant device" as recited in claim 1.
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner's assertion that the billing
account information is "sufficient to process a payment from said remote
access merchant device," as recited by claim 1. (Reply Br. 2.) Appellant
cites Takatori's paragraphs 77-81 and argues:
if the billing account information recited by Takatori was
"number data and verification code data . . . retrieved from said
central database upon receiving said selection of one of said list
of available payment options" that is "sufficient to process a
payment from said remote access merchant device," the system
of Takatori would not need to transmit this information to a
control server for use in querying a customer database in order to
determine an account to be charged for the particular transaction.
(Reply Br. 3.) We find Appellant's argument unpersuasive because
Takatori's paragraph 81 teaches "[t]he billing server 4 receives the billing
account information and the charging amount from the control server 3,
then, it performs charging processing to the account designated by the
billing account information" (emphasis added). In other words, performing
charging processing is within the scope of "processing a payment" as recited
in claim 1. In particular, performing processing of a payment based on the
5
Appeal2014-007979
Application 12/029,489
received billing account information is a clear indication that the billing
account information is sufficient for said processing of the payment.
Thus, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred by taking the position
that "billing account information" constitutes "payments options data" as
recited in claim 1. (See Ans. 15.) Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14--16, 19, and 21.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14--16, 19,
and 21 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6