Ex Parte Olliphant et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2014

11966841 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/966,841 12/28/2007 Hugo Olliphant 70481.18 5843
116452 7590 06/24/2014
Haynes & Boone, LLP
2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
ZIEGLE, STEPHANIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2014 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 HUGO OLLIPHANT, MATTHEW MENGERINK, and
GERMAN SCIPIONI
____________

Appeal 2012-001300
Application 11/966,841
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL W. KIM, 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 1-5, 8-14, 19-24, 26, 28, and 30-34, which are all the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-001300
Application 11/966,841
2

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a system and method
for identification verification over a financial network (Spec. 2:11-12).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.

1. A method for identification verification over a network,
comprising:
receiving via a communication interface an image of a
user from a user device for a purchase request by the user,
wherein the image is taken of the user at the time of the
purchase request and the image is stored and used to resolve
subsequent potential disputes;
comparing, by one or more processors, the image
received from the user device with a known good image of the
user, wherein the known good image is taken and stored prior
to the purchase request; and
transmitting one of a positive identification or a negative
identification to a merchant to facilitate processing of the
purchase request by the user.

THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1-5, 8-14, 19-24, 26, 28, and 30-34 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cheaib (US 2002/0073029 A1,
June 13, 2002) and Tidwell (US 2005/0125296 A1, pub. June 9, 2005).

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

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 2012-001300
Application 11/966,841
3

ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation that “the image is taken of
the user at the time of the purchase request and the image is stored and used
to resolve subsequent potential disputes” as set forth in claim 1 (Br. 4-5).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitation is disclosed by Tidwell at Figs. 9C and 9D and ¶ 219 (Ans. 6, 15).
We agree with the Appellants. In claim 1, the claim limitation at issue
requires that “the image is taken of the user at the time of the purchase
request and the image is stored and used to resolve subsequent potential
disputes” (emphasis added). Thus, the cited claim limitation requires, in
part, that the image is taken at the time of purchase, stored, and used to
resolve subsequent potential disputes. Although Tidwell ¶ 219 does disclose
having a photograph taken, this is done prior to the check cashing and stored
for future comparisons by the check cashing entity. Tidwell ¶ 0219 does not
disclose that a photograph is also taken at the time of a purchase request and
then stored and used to resolve subsequent potential disputes. Tidwell at
Figs. 9C and 9D fails to disclose this as well.
The Examiner, in the Response to Argument section of the Answer,
has determined that the cited claim limitation is found in Cheaib at the
abstract and Fig. 3 (Ans. 15). The abstract in Cheaib does disclose that an
image may be taken at the time of purchase but does not disclose that this
“image is stored and used to resolve subsequent potential disputes,” as the
claim 1 requires. Cheaib at Fig. 3 does disclose that a purchaser’s image is
taken (step 65) but does not specifically disclose that the image is stored and
used to resolve subsequent potential disputes. Rather, the “save” step 74 in
Fig. 3 is related to the purchaser’s signature (see ¶ 42). Further, Cheaib ¶ 16
Appeal 2012-001300
Application 11/966,841
4

mentions the storage of a previously taken image in the image database, but
this image is not the image taken at the time of purchase.
As the cited portions of Tidwell and Cheaib fail to disclose the cited
claim limitation, the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims is not
sustained. The remaining claims include a similar limitation and the
rejection of these claims is not sustained for the same reasons given above.

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

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 8-14, 19-24, 26, 28, and
30-34 is reversed.

REVERSED

llw