Ex Parte Green et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

13436819 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

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.
13/436,819 03/30/2012 Travis Harrison Kroll Green GOOG-0590 1056
14925 7590 08/31/2016
Johnson, Marcou & Isaacs, LLC
317A East Liberty Street
Savannah, GA 31401
EXAMINER
CRAWLEY, TALIA F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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 TRAVIS HARRISON KROLL GREEN and
AVERY PENNARUN
____________

Appeal 2014-006254
Application 13/436,819
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1–20, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Oral arguments were
presented on August 25, 2016.

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2014-006254
Application 13/436,819

2

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to peer-to-peer
transactions at a merchant location (Spec., para. 1). Claim 1, reproduced
below with the numbering in brackets added, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal.

1. A computer-implemented method to conduct a peer-to-peer
transaction, comprising:
[1] receiving, by a computer system from a merchant network
device, a request for approval of a peer-to-peer transaction, wherein
the request includes user account information captured from a
magnetic strip card encoded with the user account information and
transaction information for a purchase transaction;
[2] determining, by the computer system, that the user account
information is valid;
[3] transmitting, by the computer system to a user network
device associated with the user account, a request for authorization of
the transaction, wherein the request comprises at least a portion of the
transaction information;
[4] receiving, by the computer system from the user network
device, an authorization for the transaction that was input by a user
into the user network device;
[5] transmitting, by the computer system to the merchant
network device, an approval of the transaction in response to
receiving the authorization from the user network device; and
[6] conducting, by the computer system, the transaction by
debiting an account associated with the user account information and
crediting an account associated with the merchant network device in
an amount specified in the transaction information, wherein the
computer system manages both the account associated with the user
account information and the account associated with the merchant
network device.

Appeal 2014-006254
Application 13/436,819

3

THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Wilkes (US 2005/0097015, pub. May 5, 2005).

FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.1

ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the cited prior art fails to disclose elements of claim limitations [3] and [4]
identified above (App. Br. 12–16; Reply Br. 4–6).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitations are shown by Wilkes at paras. 32, 33, 36, 37, and 67–71
respectively (Final Act. 2–4; Ans. 3).
We agree with the Appellants. The Appellants have argued that the
prior art fails to disclose the claimed limitations for
[3] transmitting, by the computer system to a user network device
associated with the user account, a request for authorization of the
transaction, [wherein the request comprises at least a portion of the
transaction information]; [and]
[4] receiving, by the computer system from the user network device,
an authorization for the transaction that was input by a user into the
user network device;

1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2014-006254
Application 13/436,819

4

(App. Br. 11 (emphasis added)). Here, the argued claim limitations recite, in
part, “transmitting, by the computer system to a user network device
associated with the user account . . . [and] . . . receiving, by the computer
system from the user network device, an authorization for the transaction”
(emphasis added). The claim limitations, thus, require that the computer
system method of “transmitting” to a “user network device” and then further
to “receiv[e]” from the “user network device” in the specifically claimed
manner, and the above citations to the prior art fail to disclose this. For
example, in Wilkes at para. 33, the transmitting is from the merchant 14 (via
device 16) to the acquirer bank 22, and thus the “transmitting” is not to “a
user network device associated with the user account” in the manner claimed
by claim limitation [3]. Further, claim limitation [4] requires “receiving”
from the “user network device, an authorization for the transaction” and the
citations of record fail to disclose this. For example, in para. 71, it is
disclosed that a payee can “push” an amount of money to a client, but
nothing of receiving an authorization for the transaction from the user
network device after a transmission from the computer to the user account.
For this reason, the rejection of claim 1 is not sustained. The remaining
claims contain similar limitations and the rejection of these claims is not
sustained as well.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1–20 as listed in the Rejection section above.

Appeal 2014-006254
Application 13/436,819

5

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 is reversed.

REVERSED