Fisher, Michelle

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 23, 2020

2019003563 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2020)

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.
12/592,581 11/25/2009 Michelle Fisher 379842-991160 2986
12120 7590 07/23/2020
Michelle Fisher
2930 Domingo Ave
Suite 123
Berkeley, CA 94705
EXAMINER
KELLEY, STEVEN SHAUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2020 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):
mfisher@blazemobile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHELLE FISCHER

Appeal 2019-003563
Application 12/592,581
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Final
Rejection of claims 86, 88, 89, 95, 96, 98, 99, and 105–123, which constitute
all pending claims. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
An oral hearing was held on June 24, 2020. The record will include a
written transcript of the oral hearing.
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the
inventor, Michelle Fischer. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003563
Application 12/592,581

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to conducting a Near Field Communication
(NFC) transaction using an NFC protocol and a mobile wireless device.
Abstract; Spec.2 ¶¶ 2, 3, 10, 13, 14; Figs. 1, 3A–3C.
Claim 86, reproduced below, is representative3 of the claimed subject
matter (emphases added):
86. A method for conducting a Near Field Communication
(NFC) transaction using an NFC protocol, the method comprising:
maintaining an identification code associated with a user and a
secure element application configured to use the NFC protocol in a
secure element memory, the secure element memory, a secure element
processor and a secure element transceiver supporting a first
communication channel comprising the NFC protocol included in a
secure element embedded within the body of a mobile device, the
mobile device comprising of a mobile device memory, a mobile
device processor, and a mobile device wireless transceiver;
executing the secure element application in response to a near
field communication inductive signal by an NFC terminal;
wirelessly transmitting, using the secure element application, a
transaction request including the identification code associated with
the user via the secure element transceiver over a first communication
channel to the NFC terminal in response to the near field
communication inductive signal by the NFC terminal, wherein the
transaction request including the identification code associated with
the user is transmitted over a second communication channel that is
different than the first communication channel to a server for
processing the NFC transaction using a payment method stored at the
server that corresponds to the identification code associated with the
user, wherein the NFC terminal and the first communication channel
is configured to use the NFC protocol; and

2 Specification, filed 11/25/2009 (“Spec.”).
3 Appellant’s arguments are directed toward independent claims 86 and 96.
See Appeal Br. 44–45 (the reference to claim 1 appears to be harmless
error). We select claim 86 as representative and the remaining other claims
stand or fall with claim 86. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-003563
Application 12/592,581

3
after a payment has been processed by the server, receiving a
transaction response at the mobile application from the server over the
second communication channel.

Appeal Br. 46 (Claim Appendix).
REFERENCES
Prior art relied upon by the Examiner:
Name Reference Date
Rosenberg US 2004/0235450 Al Nov. 25, 2004
Nystrom et al. US 2009/0075592 Al Mar. 19, 2009
Yeager US 2007/0075133 Al Apr. 5, 2007
Park US 2005/0143051 Al June 30, 2005
Hagale et al. US 2006/0253389 Al Nov. 9, 2006

REJECTIONS
Claims 86, 88, 89, 95, 96, 98, 99, 105–108, 112–114, and 118–123 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosenberg,
Nystrom, and Yeager. Final Act. 2–11.
Claims 109 and 115 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rosenberg, Nystrom, Yeager, and Park. Final Act. 8.
Claims 110, 111, 116, and 117 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Rosenberg, Nystrom, Yeager, and Hagale. Final
Act. 9–10.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Rosenberg, Nystrom, and Yeager teaches the limitations of independent
claim 86, and in finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined the references. Appeal Br. 2–45; Reply Br. 1–37. In particular,
Appeal 2019-003563
Application 12/592,581

4
Appellant argues the Examiner’s combination of the references does not
teach the following claim 86 limitations:
(1) “maintaining an identification code associated with a user
and a secure element application configured to use the NFC protocol
in a secure element memory” and
(2) “wherein the transaction request including the identification
code associated with the user is transmitted over a second
communication channel that is different than the first communication
channel to a server for processing the NFC transaction using a
payment method stored at the server that corresponds to the
identification code associated with the user.”

Id. (also referred to as “disputed limitations (1) and (2)”; designations (1)
and (2) and emphasis added). Additional arguments presented by Appellant
are discussed in the analysis below.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds Rosenberg and Nystrom each
teaches disputed limitation (1). Final Act. 2–3 (citing Rosenberg, Figs. 1, 2,
4–6, 8; ¶¶ 42–56; Nystrom, Figs. 7, 9; ¶¶ 127–133, 136–139). The
Examiner finds Rosenberg and Nystrom each teaches using the secure
element for POS transactions. Id. (citing Rosenberg ¶¶ 5, 6, 43, 45, 57–60;
Nystrom ¶¶ 6, 7, 42). Regarding the “identification code associated with a
user,” although the Examiner finds Rosenberg teaches “sending an account
number, which is the ‘identification code’ of the account and the account
number would be associated with a user,” the Examiner additionally cites
Yeager. Id. at 4 (citing Rosenberg ¶¶ 6, 57). The Examiner finds Yeager
teaches “transmitting the account number 626 (which is the ‘identification
code of the account associated with the user’[] and is programmed into the
attachable adapter 100) during the POS transaction using NFC.” Id. at 4–5
(citing Yeager ¶¶ 21–23, 29, 31–36; Fig. 2).
Appeal 2019-003563
Application 12/592,581

5
The Examiner finds Rosenberg teaches disputed limitation (2). Id. at
3 (citing Rosenberg ¶¶ 6, 40, 52, 53). In particular, Rosenberg teaches
transmitting the account number from the secure element for the NFC
transactions. Id.
Regarding the combination of Rosenberg, Nystrom, and Yeager, the
Examiner determines:
Therefore, as all of Rosenberg, Nystrom and Yeager teach the
conventionality of using NFC attachable devices to perform POS
transactions, and as Yeager explicitly teaches storing the user’s account
number in the smart card element 100, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Rosenberg/Nystrom
combination to use an attachable adapter 100 to “transmit the
identification code associated with the user”, as taught by Yeager.

Id. at 5.
Appellant argues a prior Board Decision4 (also referred to as “Prior
Decision” and “Prior Dec.”) decided by a different panel corroborates many
of its arguments in this case. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 10, 12, 23, 24. Appellant
argues Rosenberg teaches a bank account or credit card number is stored on
the smart link module and refers to the Prior Decision determination that
“[t]he Examiner finds, and we agree, Figure 5 of Rosenberg is directed to a
method of transmitting payment information from a smartlink module to a
POS terminal.” Id. at 10 (quoting Prior Dec. 11). Appellant additionally
argues:
Rosenberg also positively recites that the identification code
stored in the smartlink module (Examiner alleges is “secure element”)
is the identifying information of the mobile device such as the ESN
or manufacturer serial number in paragraph 54 and is used to “mate”

4 Appeal 2015-004293, Application 12/592,581.
Appeal 2019-003563
Application 12/592,581

6
or authenticate the mobile device to the smart/ink module (Examiner
alleges is “secure element”) in paragraph 56. Stated another way, the
identification code does not correspond to a payment method much
less used in the NFC payment transaction to process a payment using
a payment method that corresponds to the identification code of a
user. This distinction is important since if the mobile device is sold or
given to someone else, the user changes, but the ESN or serial number
(Examiner alleges is “identification code associated with the user”)
which is associated with the mobile device stays the same. In contrast,
Applicant teaches that the payment method is stored at the server and
an identification code associated with the user is transmitted from the
secure element to the server as reflected by amended independent
claims recite in part, “a payment method stored at the server[.]”

Id. at 11.
Appellant argues Nystrom, like Rosenberg, stores credit information
in the secure smart module, not at the server. Id. at 12–13 (citing Nystrom
¶ 5). Appellant argues this is corroborated by the Prior Decision: “The
Examiner finds, and we agree, Nystrom teaches ‘an identification of a credit
card provider is transmitted to the POS.’ (Ans. 4–5 (citing Nystrom ¶ 142)).”
Id. at 12. Appellant also argues the Prior Decision notes that Nystrom
transfers payment credentials and Rosenberg teaches the transmission of
payment credentials. Id.
Appellant argues the Yeager public account/ key does not correspond
to a payment method, and the key is not used in processing a payment using
a payment method that corresponds to the public account/key 626. Id. at 16.
Appellant argues, even assuming the Examiner’s findings regarding
the individual teachings of Rosenberg, Nystrom, and Yeager, the Examiner’s
suggested combination would require an impermissible redesign of
Rosenberg. Id. at 17. In particular, according to Appellant:
Appeal 2019-003563
Application 12/592,581

7
1) Rosenberg’s credit card number (Examiner alleges is
“payment method”) would not be transmitted from the smart link
module to the POS to the server which as mentioned above is affirmed
by the Board Appeal Decision dated 11/1/16.
2) Nystrom’s would not transmit the credit card information
(Examiner alleges is “payment method”)
3) Rosenberg’s server would not process the payment using the
payment method.
4) Rosenberg’s identification code stored in the smart link
module would not be used for mating/authentication with the mobile
device, but would also be transmitted with the credit card number
(Examiner alleges is “payment method”).

Id.
Appellant argues “the identification code is not interchangeable with a
payment method (i.e., credit card number).” Id. at 38; see also, e.g., id. at
27–30.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds Rosenberg teaches transmitting an
account number (“identification code . . . ”) to the server, and this would
indicate that the payment method associated with the account number is
stored at the server. Ans. 3 (citing Rosenberg ¶¶ 6, 52). The Examiner
additionally cites Yeager for teaching storing different payment methods at
servers where the type of payment is determined by the transmitted user
account number. Id. (citing Yeager, Figs. 4–7).
Regarding the combination of the references, the Examiner finds “as
Rosenberg teaches using credit cards and account numbers (see sections
[0006] and [0052]) and as Yeager also teaches credit card transactions and
account numbers etc., the Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill to modify Rosenberg with the teachings of Yeager,
Appeal 2019-003563
Application 12/592,581

8
to include transmitting the ‘identification code’, as this modification does
not destroy or alter the operation or teachings of Rosenberg.” Id. at 4.
The Examiner finds that a credit card type of payment may be
interpreted as the recited “method of payment.” Id. In particular:
The Examiner sets forth that Yeager’s teachings of storing the
account number in the secure element (see section [0031]), which is
then transmitted to the backend financial servers during the POS
transaction, would require and/or may be interpreted to mean that the
backend servers store the payment method. By storing an account
number or credit card number at a server (see Fig. 5 of Yeager), the
server would then implicitly store the method of payment as “credit
card payment method”. In essence, using a credit card account is a
“credit card payment method”.

Id.
Regarding Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s combination of
the references would “require an impermissible redesign,” the Examiner
determines:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the
references as set forth in the rejection. For example, all the references
teach using an attachable (secure element) on a mobile phone to
perform an NFC transaction at a point-of-sale terminal. All the
references further teach that backend financial servers will debit the
user’s account based on the received transaction information from the
attached secure element (via the POS terminal). Therefore, as the basic
operation of all the references is similar and would be unchanged by
the modifications as set forth in the rejection, the Examiner asserts that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the
references as set forth in the rejection and these modifications would
not “require an impermissible redesign”, as Appellant contends.

Id. at 9.
Appeal 2019-003563
Application 12/592,581

9
In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates arguments and argues that the
Application describes two distinct methods (“scenarios”) of processing and
NFC transaction:
The first embodiment teaches storing payment credentials or
payment methods in the secure element and transmitting them to the
POS terminal which transmits them to a server for processing. Support
can be found, for example, in Figure 3A and 3B. A second embodiment
reflected in the Instant Application teaches storing an identification
code associated with the user in the secure element and transmitting it
to the POS terminal which transmits it to a server that processes the
transaction using a payment method that corresponds to the
identification code associated with the user. Support can be found, for
example, in the Specification in paragraph 37, “If the point of sale
terminal reader 152 includes the provision for NFC communications,
then simply bringing the secure element 130 with the NFC transceiver
will cause initiation of a transaction and the transmission of the
identification code associated with the secure element 130 and thus the
user[]” and paragraph 40, “As such, the management server 180 can
store user personal and credit and transactional information and history,
including a code associated with the user, for a variety of different
mobile devices, thereby allowing a system which can scale.”

Reply Br. 14–15.
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s responses to
Appellant’s arguments. For at least the reasons discussed below, we agree
with and adopt the Examiner’s factual findings and legal conclusions, as set
forth in the Final Action and Examiner’s Answer. In our analysis below, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis.
Much of Appellant’s arguments are directed to an unreasonably
narrow interpretation of the disputed limitations of claim 86, and an
Appeal 2019-003563
Application 12/592,581

10
unreasonably narrow interpretation of the teachings of Rosenberg, Nystrom,
and Yeager.
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the Specification as it
would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). While we
interpret claims broadly, but reasonably in light of the Specification, we
nonetheless must not import limitations from the Specification into the
claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
According to Appellant, claim 86 presents a method for conducting an
NFC transaction using an NFC protocol. App. Br. 3. The method includes
maintaining an identification code associated with a user in a secure
element, transmitting the identification code to an NFC terminal, and
transmitting the identification code to a server5 for processing the NFC
transaction using a payment method stored at the server that corresponds to
the identification code associated with the user. Id.
We now refer to the disputed claim 86 limitations. For example,
claim 86 disputed limitation (1) does not recite the “identification code . . . ”
must be a serial number and cannot be a credit card number. Nor does
disputed limitation (2) “server for processing the NFC transaction using a
payment method stored at the server that corresponds to the identification
code associated with the user” recite that the payment method cannot be a

5 Figure 1 of the Specification includes two servers: management server 180
and Transaction Server 170. It appears that Appellant intends the recited
“server” to correspond to the Transaction Server 170 and this
characterization of claim 86 is also articulated by Appellant at the Oral
Hearing. See Transcript (“Tr.”) 9:17–10:6 (discussing Fig. 1 of the Spec.).
Appeal 2019-003563
Application 12/592,581

11
method to debit a particular credit card. Similarly, disputed limitation (2)
does not recite that the payment method is only stored at the server, and
cannot be stored at both the secure element and at the server. Nor does the
claim recite that the identification code is only stored in the secure element
and cannot be stored at both the secure element and at the server. See, e.g.,
Tr. 13:7–10 (“these new claims recite a different scenario in which only the
identification code is stored in the secure element, and the payment method
is stored at the server”).
The plain reading of the disputed limitations supports a broad and
reasonable interpretation of the disputed limitations as utilized in the
Examiner’s findings, and does not support Appellant’s arguments. Nor has
Appellant identified portions of the Specification which would provide
definitions or sufficient guidance to a person of ordinary skill in the art that
the claims would be interpreted as asserted by Appellant.6 Additionally
certain advantages of the invention asserted by Appellant, for example,
additional security and scaling, are not recited in claim 86. See Appeal Br.
11; Ans. 6.
Applying a broad and reasonable interpretation of disputed limitation
(1), the “identification code . . . ” can be a serial number as asserted by
Appellant, or can also be other elements, including a credit card number as
asserted by the Examiner. Similarly, applying a broad and reasonable
interpretation of disputed limitation (2) requires a payment method to be

6 At the Hearing, Appellant referred to several portions of the Specification
but these citations do not provide sufficient definition nor do they provide a
context which would support Appellant’s unreasonably narrow interpretation
of the disputed limitations.
Appeal 2019-003563
Application 12/592,581

12
stored at the server but does not require the payment method to be stored
only on the server. Nor does the claim exclude the credit card number as the
“identification code” and using the credit card associated with the credit card
number as the “payment method.”
With a broad and reasonable claim interpretation, we now refer to the
Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of Rosenberg, Nystrom, and
Yeager.
Rosenberg teaches transmitting an account number (identification
code) to the server and that would indicate that the payment method, which
is associated with the account number, is stored at the server, which
processes the payment. Ans. 3; Rosenberg ¶¶ 6, 52. And, we agree that
Appellant’s reference to Rosenberg’s ESN does not address the Examiner’s
findings. Id.
Nystrom teaches using a secure element for the POS transactions.
Final Act. 3; Nystrom ¶¶ 6, 12, 127–133, 136–139, 142, 143; Figs. 7, 9.
Yeager teaches transmitting an account number (“identification code
. . . ”) during the POS transaction. Final Act. 4–5; Yeager ¶¶ 31–36; Fig. 2.
A credit card type of payment as in Yeager may be interpreted as the
“payment method” as using a credit card account is a “credit card payment
method.” Yeager stores the account number in the secure element during the
POS transaction and transmits it to the backend servers during the POS
transaction, and this results in storing the payment method in the backend
servers. Ans. 4–5; Yeager ¶ 31; Fig. 5.
We turn now to the Prior Board Decision which affirmed the
obviousness rejection of then-pending claim 54 over Rosenberg and
Nystrom. Prior Dec. 1–14. Claim 54 has since been cancelled. Although
Appeal 2019-003563
Application 12/592,581

13
then-pending claim 54 included similarities to present claim 86, there are
significant differences. Claim 54 as it appeared at the time of the Prior
Decision is reproduced below:
54. A method for conducting a purchase transaction using a
hand-held mobile device, the method comprising:
providing a hand-held mobile device with a body, a
visual display, a first processor, a first communication
channel which supports voice and data interactions at a first
radio transceiver at the hand-held mobile device using at
least one of GSM and CDMA, and a secure element
permanently disposed within the body of the hand-held
mobile device that has a memory, a processor capable of
near field communications, and a plurality of
communication transceivers each of which supports a
different respective communication protocol including at
least near field communications;
executing a payment protocol stored in memory of the
secure element by a processor of the secure element in
response to a near field communication interaction of the
secure element with the point-of-sale terminal using a second
communication channel capable of supporting near field
communications, wherein the point-of-sale terminal is capable
of near field communications;
facilitating a transfer of the payment credentials, stored
in the memory of the secure element and associated with a
payment account, to the point-of-sale terminal without prior
manual user authentication in response to the near field
communication trigger by the point-of sale terminal; and
wirelessly transmitting the payment credentials to the
remote point-of-sale terminal over the second
communication channel in response to the near field
communication trigger by the point-of-sale terminal without
prior manual user authentication.

Appeal 2019-003563
Application 12/592,581

14
Dec. 2 (emphasis added in italics; emphasis from then-pending claim 54
changed for purposes of comparison to currently-pending claim 86).
Claim 54 did not recite disputed limitation (2) “using a payment
method stored on the server.” Claim 54 recited the terms “payment
protocol” and “payment credentials” that are stored within the secure
element in the memory of the mobile device, but does not recite the disputed
limitation (1) term “identification code . . . .” Much of the Prior Decision is
focused on the teachings of the references (Rosenberg, Nystrom) as to the
secure memory in the secure element. The findings are relevant regarding
currently-pending claim 86 but the Prior Decision does not directly address
“identification code . . . ” and disputed limitation (2) because the focus is on
“payment protocol” stored in the secure element, not on the “identification
code . . . ” stored in the secure element and “payment method stored at the
server.” See Dec. 3–14. Thus, the Prior Decision is consistent with the
Examiner’s current findings regarding currently-pending claim 86. The
Prior Decision finding that payment credentials (credit card) stored in the
secure element and transferred to the server does not support Appellant’s
current argument that the payment method is not stored at the server.
Instead, the findings of the Prior Decision are consistent with the Examiner’s
findings that the server receives the identification code (credit card number),
stores it, and utilizes it as a payment method to debit the account. See Ans.
4.
Therefore, the Prior Decision is consistent with the Examiner’s
current findings and does not corroborate Appellant’s arguments.
On the record before us, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments and agree, instead, with the findings and conclusion of the
Appeal 2019-003563
Application 12/592,581

15
Examiner. As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection must be based on:
[S]ome articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness . . . . [H]owever, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Appellant argues an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the
disputed limitations, an unreasonably narrow teaching of Rosenberg,
Nystrom, and Yeager, and an overly demanding standard of obviousness.
Additionally, in view of the Examiner’s findings discussed supra, there is
insufficient evidence to support Appellant’s argument of “impermissible
redesign.”7 We note:
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner’s findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of

7 Additionally, we note the Prior Decision finding that “Appellant’s
argument that the combination of Rosenberg and Nystrom ‘require[s] an
impermissible redesign . . . is not persuasive.’” Prior Dec. 13.
Appeal 2019-003563
Application 12/592,581

16
a puzzle” because the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21.
Based upon the teachings of the references and the fact that each
claimed element in the disputed limitation was well known in the art, we
agree with the Examiner because the combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results. Id. at 415–16. We note Appellant presents no
persuasive arguments that the results are unpredictable. Moreover, as
discussed supra, the Examiner provides reasons why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have combined the references in the manner suggested.
On this record, Appellant does not present sufficient or persuasive
evidence that the combination of the cited references was “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 419–21).
In view of the above, on the record before us, we sustain the rejections
of representative claim 86, and claims 88, 89, 95, 96, 98, 99, and 105–123.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 86, 88, 89, 95, 96, 98, 99, 105–
108, 112–114, and 118–123 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Rosenberg, Nystrom, and Yeager is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 109 and 115 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg, Nystrom, Yeager, and Park is
affirmed.
Appeal 2019-003563
Application 12/592,581

17
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 110, 111, 116, and 117 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg, Nystrom, Yeager, and
Hagale is affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
86, 88, 89,
95, 96, 98,
99, 105–108,
112–114,
118–123
103(a) Rosenberg, Nystrom,
Yeager
86, 88, 89,
95, 96, 98,
99, 105–108,
112–114,
118–123

109, 115 103(a) Rosenberg, Nystrom,
Yeager, Park
109, 115
110, 111,
116, 117
103(a) Rosenberg, Nystrom,
Yeager, Hagale
110, 111,
116, 117

Overall
Outcome:
  86, 88, 89,
95, 96, 98,
99, 105–123

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED