Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

12431790 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/431,790 04/29/2009
69316 7590 09/27/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JunboZhang
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.
322199.01 5840
EXAMINER
ORTIZ ROMAN, DENISSE Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUNBO ZHANG, JAY TZE, ERIC ZHENG,
BELINDA WU, and LOIS WANG
Appeal2017-006533
Application 12/431,790
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, JOYCE CRAIG, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-7, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is MICROSOFT
TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 8-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 2.
Appeal2017-006533
Application 12/431,790
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a provider-driven payment adapter
plug-in to a payment gateway. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as
follows:
1. One or more computer-readable storage media
containing instructions which, when executed by one or more
processors disposed in an electronic device, perform a method
for implementing a web service on a payment gateway, the
method comprising the steps of:
receiving transaction data from a merchant that engages
with a given payment service provider through a payment
gateway to authorize and settle electronic payments associated
with an asynchronous charge;
selecting, from among a plurality of payment adapters
that are plug-ins to the payment gateway, a payment adapter
that is configured for exposing a payment adapter API to the
payment gateway and for applying logic specific to the given
payment service provider responsively to calls to the API from
the payment gateway;
placing calls to the payment adapter API responsively to
the transaction data; and
receiving a payment event from the payment adapter that
provides payment status for transaction processing by the given
payment service provider.
REJECTION
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Walker (US 2007 /0022375 Al; published Jan. 25,
2007), Hutchison et al. (US 2005/0102188 Al; published May 12, 2005)
("Hutchinson"), and Rieck et al. (US 2008/0103923 Al; published May 1,
2008) ("Rieck"). Final Act. 3---6.
2
Appeal2017-006533
Application 12/431,790
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of claims 1-7 in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this decision
only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other
arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs
are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error. We agree with and
adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set
forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We
provide the following explanation for emphasis.
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants contend the
Examiner erred because the cited portions of Walker, Hutchinson, and Rieck
do not teach or suggest all of the recited limitations. App. Br. 7.
Appellants first argue Walker does not teach or suggest the limitation
"associated with an asynchronous charge," as recited in claim 1. Id. at 8.
In particular, Appellants argue the term "asynchronous" means "not
transacted in real time." Id. Appellants argue asynchronous payments
"could include payments such as bank transfers and those made in response
to invoices." Id. (citing Spec. ,r 41). Appellants further argue "[t]here is no
disclosure or suggestion in Walker that all credit or debit cards may be
grouped together as real-time payments, and that other types of payments to
merchants may not be transacted in real time (e.g., bank transfers)." Id.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The plain language of claim
1 does not require "that all credit or debit cards may be grouped together as
real-time payments, and that other types of payments to merchants may not
be transacted in real time ( e.g., bank transfers)," as Appellants allege. Id.
3
Appeal2017-006533
Application 12/431,790
Rather, claim 1 requires "electronic payments associated with an
asynchronous charge." The Examiner found Walker teaches in paragraph
198 that "[ u Jpon installation and configuration of the dynamic adapter,
communications are established allowing the transfer of funds and other
payment system functions through standard payment system electronic
transfer techniques." Ans. 2. The Examiner further found Rieck in
paragraph 45 teaches payments by checking account transfers. Id.
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's findings. In
the Reply Brief, Appellants argue "[t]he Examiner appears to treat electronic
transfer techniques as inherently disclosing asynchronous payments," and
Walker's disclosure of electronic transfer techniques (i.e., a method of
payment) cannot inherently disclose the timing of payments and, thus, the
asynchronous charge recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 2. The Examiner,
however, gave no indication of relying on principles of inherency in the
rejection. Instead, the Examiner cited Rieck as teaching payments by
checking account transfers, which Appellants acknowledge are
asynchronous payments (see App. Br. 8 ("bank transfers")). Ans. 2.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F .2d
413,425 (CCPA 1981). Because Appellants have not addressed the
rejection actually made by the Examiner, we are not persuaded of error.
4
Appeal2017-006533
Application 12/431,790
Appellants next argue Walker fails to teach "selecting, from among a
plurality of payment adapters that are plug-ins to the payment gateway, a
payment adapter that is configured for ... applying logic specific to the given
payment service provider," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12. Appellants
argue the dynamic adapter taught in Walker is not tailored to individual
payment service providers used by the merchants and is not selected from
among a plurality of payment adapters that are each specific to a different
payment service provider, as claim 1 requires. Id.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner found Walker
teaches or suggests a payment adapter that is able to apply logic specific to a
given service provider that is interfacing with a payment system server,
which acts as a gateway. Ans. 2 (citing Walker ,r,r 195, 197, Fig. 21). The
Examiner further found paragraph 62 of Hutchison teaches a commerce
gateway adapter, and paragraph 35 of Rieck teaches payment adapters
supporting communications to banks. Appellants have not persuaded us that
the disputed limitation would not have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary
skill in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants again argue the references
separately, addressing only paragraph 195 of Walker in the Reply Brief.
Reply Br. 4.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Walker, Hutchinson, and Rieck teaches or suggests
the disputed limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 2-7, not argued separately. See App. Br. 12.
5
Appeal2017-006533
Application 12/431,790
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6