JACKSON, CHRISTOPHER S. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 18, 2019

14855537 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2019)

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.
14/855,537 09/16/2015 CHRISTOPHER S. JACKSON 6819-0029 8927
23117 7590 12/18/2019
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, LINGLAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2019 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER S. JACKSON and
PETER A. JOHNSON

___________

Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JENNNIFER S. BISK, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–30, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was conducted on October 24, 2019.
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to Applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is the Assignee,
Paradigm. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
Disclosed embodiments of Appellant’s invention relate “to systems
and methods for generating and authenticating credentials, and in particular
electronic credentials. Spec. ¶ 3.

Representative Claim
1. An electronically implemented method for
validating a certified electronic academic credential, the
method comprising:

storing, in a validation database, a plurality of
certified electronic credential records corresponding to a
plurality of certified electronic academic credentials and
associated authentication information, each record
associated with an authentication information and
comprising an academic credential status;

receiving a certified electronic credential
validation request and proffered authentication
information redirected from [L1] a credentialer
validation portal interface available from a credentialer;

identifying a certified electronic credential record in
the validation database associated with the proffered
authentication information;

generating a validation response based on the
identified certified electronic credential record;

[L2] transmitting the validation response to the
credentialer validation portal; and

2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed April 11, 2017 (“Final
Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Oct. 18, 2017 (“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer,
mailed Dec. 8, 2017 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed Feb. 6, 2018
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

3

[L3] displaying validation information based on at
least a portion of the validation response at the
credentialer validation portal interface.
App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added regarding disputed
limitations L1, L2, and L3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103).

Rejections
A. Claims 1–9, 11, 17, 18, 22, 26, 27, 29, and 30 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings
and suggestions of Roberts (US 2014/0090036 A1) (“Roberts”),
in view of Ki et al. (US 2004/0187076 Al) (“Ki”).
B. Claims 10, 12–16, 19–21, 23–25 and 28 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings and
suggestions of Roberts, Ki, and further in view of Johnson (US
2010/0217988 Al).

Grouping of Claims
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, and our discretion under 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of §103 Rejection A of claims
1–9, 11, 17–18, 22, 26, 27, 29, and 30 on the basis of representative claim 1.
We separately address §103 Rejection B, infra.

Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

4
Issue on Appeal

Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err by finding the
cited combination of Roberts and Ki would have taught or suggested
contested limitations L1, L2, and L3:

receiving a certified electronic credential
validation request and proffered authentication
information redirected from [L1] a credentialer
validation portal interface available from a credentialer;

identifying a certified electronic credential record m
the validation database associated with the proffered
authentication information;

generating a validation response based on the
identified certified electronic credential record;

[L2] transmitting the validation response to the
credentialer validation portal; and

[L3] displaying validation information based on at
least a portion of the validation response at the
credentialer validation portal interface[,]
within the meaning of independent claim 1?3 (emphasis added).
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the

3 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation (“BRI”) consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

5
Examiner’s obviousness rejections, and the Examiner’s responses to
Appellant’s arguments. On this record, Appellant does not proffer sufficient
argument or evidence to persuade us of error regarding the Examiner’s
underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. In
our analysis below, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis.
Claim Construction
As an initial matter of claim construction, we look to Appellant’s
Specification for any expressly defined claim terms. We additionally
consider the meaning of other claim terms that are not expressly defined in
the Specification, but are instead described in terms of non-limiting,
exemplary embodiments, typically by incorporating broadening language,
such as: “for example,” “or the like,” “may comprise,” “for instance,” and
“may be,” as emphasized in italics below:
A Credential
A Credential is an item that provides the basis for confidence,
belief, credit, evidence of authority, status, rights, entitlement to
privileges, or the like, usually in written form. Recognition of a
Credential may comprise, for example, of a scholastic diploma,
academic transcript, award, certificate, or other document that
represents an achievement.
Spec. ¶ 27 (emphasis added).

A Certified Electronic Credential
A Certified Electronic Credential is a digitally or
electronically produced credential, e.g. a computer-readable file
representative of a credential, protected with one or more
security features, and assigned one or more identifying features
for use with validating the credential. The Certified Electronic
Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

6
DiplomaTM, or CeDTM, is an example of a Certified Electronic
Credential.
Spec. ¶ 26 (emphasis added).
The Credentialer
The Credentialer is an entity, organization, body, or the like,
that awards the Credential to the Recipient. For example, a
Credentialer may award a Credential to a Recipient
who has successfully completed one or more Courses,
Recognition of a Credential may comprise, for example, a
scholastic diploma, academic transcript, award, certificate or
other issuance that represents an achievement A Course may be,
for example, a field of study that is widely accepted and/or
accredited, such that the completion of the Course gives the
Recipient knowledge that has transactional value within a
market
Spec. ¶ 13 (emphasis added).

Validation / Validation Entity

Validation may be performed through a variety of methods.
For instance, a Validating Entity may wish to validate the
credential represented by the Certified Electronic Credential
101. Validation may include confirming that a Credential 101 is
authentic, e.g., that the Credentialer issued the credential to the
Recipient consistent with credential information 104.
Spec. ¶ 33 (emphasis added).

[Referring to Figure 7, v]alidation begins with a Validating
Entity 701(a, b, c). A Validating Entity may be, for example,
an employer, prospective employer, government agency,
credentialing agency, or another entity seeking to authenticate
the validity of the Credentials. The Validating Entity may
present Authenticating Information, such as a URLN, to the
Credentialer 702(a, b, c) via electronic communication 710,
such as an API, onLine interface and/or a mobile application
Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

7
hosted by the Credentialer.

Spec. ¶ 68 (emphasis added).4

A Validation mechanism may advantageously use URLN 102
to validate the Credential 101, In some embodiments, the
Credentialer may provide an interface for the Validation
mechanism, through which a Validating Entity may input the
URLN 102 and receive a validation response, as described in
more detail below, The interface may be, for example, a
web site, SMS message, e-mail, or other similar electronic
communication methods.

Spec. ¶ 34 (emphasis added).

Credential Validating
As described herein, credential validating may be performed
through the Credentialer, [and] involve the Publisher in
providing a service or services that aid the validation process.
Spec. ¶ 26 (emphasis added).

4 URLN: “Adobe demonstrative Certified Electronic Credential 101 may
include a Universal Record Locating Number (or “URLN”) 102. URLN 102
may comprise, for example, a unique combination of letters, numbers,
and/or symbols, In some embodiments, URLN 102 may comprise a unique
machine-readable code, such as a unique bar code or QR code. The URLN
may allow for unique identification of the Certified Electronic Credential
101 and a link to one or more original data elements comprising the
credentials, such as may be supplied by the Credentialer.” Spec. ¶ 28.
Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

8
Credentialer Validation Portal Interface
The Validating Entity then proceeds to the Credentialer’s
validation portal at step S502, A validation portal may be, for
example, a website, mobile application, desktop application, or
other means of electronic communication. In embodiments in
which the Credentialer is an academic college or university,
the validation portal may include a web page on the registrar’s
website. In some embodiments, directions or a link to the
validation portal may be made available on the Certified
Electronic Credential. In some embodiments, a Validating
Entity may proceed to a validation portal through a hyperlink
embedded in the Certified Electronic Credential.
Spec. ¶ 59 (emphasis added).

Disputed Limitation L1
“a credentialer validation portal interface
available from a credentialer”

The Examiner finds Roberts teaches limitation L1, at Figures 3 and 4,
and paragraphs 52–55. Final Act. 3. The Examiner explains the
“credentialee [is] directed to the online credential platform along with a
reference to a requirement to be verified.” Id.
Appellant argues that Roberts does not teach a credentialer validation
portal. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant provides a non-limiting example of “a
credentialer validation portal interface” (claim 1): “For example, a
prospective employer uses a university’s credential validation portal, such as
a university web page, to validate whether a person did in fact receive a
diploma from the university.” Id. In support, Appellant contends:
Roberts fails to teach or suggest a “credentialer validation
portal interface” as recited in the independent claims. Instead,
Roberts discloses the creation and use of a third-party hub
system 100, which Applicant’s Specification criticizes. See,
Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

9
e.g., ¶¶ [0008] and [0056]. In Robert’s third party platform 100,
credential issuer 110 (e.g., university), credentialee 120 (e.g.,
graduate), and credential consumer 130 (e.g., prospective
employer) all interact directly with the third party system 100.
See, e.g., Roberts Fig. 1. As a result, each actor has skepticism
about the information received: Platform 100, its data sources,
its integrity, etc., are unknown and unrelated to credential issuer
110.
Appeal Br. 7.
At the outset, we give the claim 1 term “credentialer’s validating
portal interface” the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification. (emphasis added). See supra n.3.
As reproduced above, we look to the Specification for context, and we
find a non-limiting, exemplary description of the disputed claim term, in
pertinent part: “A validation portal may be, for example, a website, mobile
application, desktop application, or other means of electronic
communication.” Spec. ¶ 59 (emphasis added).
Therefore, we broadly but reasonably interpret the scope of the
disputed L1 claim term “a credentialer validating portal interface” as
covering any means of electronic communication, including as a non-
limiting example, a web site, such as that taught by Robert’s “Online
Credential Platform 100” (Fig 3), as found by the Examiner. See Final Act.
3. See also Roberts ¶ 39: “FIG. 2 illustrates an example of credential
components in an online credential platform.” (emphasis added).
Our broad but reasonable construction is fully consistent with the
supporting description found in the Specification, for the reasons we explain
Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

10
infra. Id. 5

Disputed Limitation L1 (cont’d)
“a credentialer validation portal interface
available from a credentialer”

We next focus our analysis on the L1 claim language “available from
a credentialer” that was added by the amendment entered on June 8, 2016.
Similarly, the language “provided from a credentialer” was added to
remaining independent claims 18 and 22 by the same June 8, 2016
amendment. See also page 5, lines 10–21 of the Oral Hearing Transcript
(mailed Nov. 5, 2019).
At the outset, we conclude the claim 1 language “available from a
credentialer” does not require any information to be made available directly
from a credentialer. Thus, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, we
conclude the information could first pass through an intermediate system,
and still be “available from a credentialer,” within the meaning of claim 1.
Therefore, we find unpersuasive Appellant’s contention in the Reply
Brief that “the context of Roberts’ paragraph [0052] demonstrates that the
sentence in question refers to the credential issuer 110 providing a proxy

5 See Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054. Cf. Spec. e.g., ¶ 77: “The present
embodiments are therefore to be considered in all respects as illustrative and
not restrictive, the scope of the invention being indicated by the claims of
the application rather than by the foregoing description, and all changes
which come within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims are
therefore intended to be embraced therein.”

Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

11
type and key to the online credential platform 100, not to a credential issuer
110 providing the online credential platform 100 itself.” Reply Br. 3.
We conclude the language of claim 1 does not require any or all
“credentialer validation portal interfaces” associated with a credentialer to be
provided by the credentialer’s own web site. See e.g., Spec. ¶ 59: “In
embodiments in which the Credentialer is an academic college or university,
the validation portal may include a web page on the registrar’s website.”
(emphasis added).
Thus, Appellant’s description in the Specification (¶ 59) provides that
even if the credentialer is an academic college or university, the credentialer
may include (but is not required to include) a web page on the registrar’s
website. Since the registrar’s website is reasonably understood as being an
integral part of the academic college or university, it logically follows that
the credentialer (e.g., an academic college or university) is not required to
provide a web page (i.e., a credentialer validation portal interface) on its own
web site, within the meaning of claim 1, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation that is fully consistent with the Specification (¶ 59). See also
n.5, supra.
Although Appellant argued during the oral hearing that the claimed
invention requires essentially the same configuration as illustrated in Figure
7 of the Specification, we disagree, given the breadth of the claims and the
breadth of the supporting descriptions found in the Specification (e.g., see
Spec. ¶ 68, describing Figure 7. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, we
conclude independent method claims 1 and 18 (or system claim 22) do not
require a structural arrangement of elements as depicted in Appellant’s
Figure 7.
Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

12
During the Oral Hearing Appellant further argued: “the distinction in
the claims is the credential validation [] portal interface is intended to be
unique to a particular credentialer, and Roberts doesn’t have that
configuration. It teaches an omnibus platform proffered -- for whatever
issuers or credentialers are using that system.” Oral Hearing Transcript 16,
ll. 10–14: (emphasis added).
However, we need not reach the issue of whether Roberts teaches or
suggests the argued “unique” relationship (id.), because we find no language
in claim 1 that requires “the credential validation [] portal interface . . . to be
unique to a particular credentialer” as argued by Appellant. Id. (emphasis
added). Significantly, all claims on appeal are silent regarding any mention
of the word “unique” or any language that positively recites the structural
arrangement depicted in Figure 7 of the Specification. Nor do we find that
system (apparatus) claim 22 overcomes the aforementioned deficiencies
regarding the argued structural arrangement.
Further regarding Appellant’s use of the indefinite article “a” (“a
credentialer validation portal interface” — claim 1(emphasis added)), our
reviewing court provides applicable guidance:
[T]his court has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article
“a” or “an” in patent parlance carries the meaning of “one or
more” in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase
“comprising.” That “a” or “an” can mean “one or more” is best
described as a rule, rather than merely as a presumption or even
a convention. The exceptions to this rule are extremely limited:
a patentee must “evince[ ] a clear intent” to limit “a” or “an” to
“one.” The subsequent use of definite articles “the” or “said” in
a claim to refer back to the same claim term does not change
the general plural rule, but simply reinvokes that non-singular
meaning.

Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

13
SanDisk Corp. v. Kingston Technology Co., Inc., 695 F.3d 1348, 1360 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (citing Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, 512 F.3d 1338,
1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
To the extent that Appellant intends for the claimed credential
validation portal interface “to be unique to a particular credentialer,” it is
our view that the best way to give the public notice of such intent is to
amend the claims accordingly, because Appellant’s arguments are not
commensurate with the broader scope of the claims presented on appeal.
See Oral Hearing Transcript 16, ll. 10–14: (emphasis added). 6 Because
“applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction
during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” In re
ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citation omitted).

6 The claim as a whole must be considered to determine whether it apprises
one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and therefore serves the notice
function required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, by providing clear
warning to others as to what constitutes infringement. Solomon v. Kimberly-
Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2000)(emphasis added). If the
language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
not interpret the metes and bounds of the claims so as to understand how to
avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph is deemed appropriate. Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chemical
Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Although the Board is authorized
to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn
when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02.

Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

14
For at least the aforementioned reasons, and based upon a
preponderance of the evidence, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding that Roberts (in combination with Ki) teaches or suggest contested
limitation L1: “a credentialer validation portal interface available from a
credentialer.” Claim 1.

Limitations L2 and L3 of Independent Claim 1
Nor do we find any deficiencies regarding Rejection A of the
remaining limitations L2 and L3 of independent claim 1 that are nominally
argued by Appellant on pages 9 and 10 of the Appeal Brief:
[L2] transmitting the validation response to the
credentialer validation portal; and

[L3] displaying validation information based on at
least a portion of the validation response at the credentialer
validation portal interface.
Claim 1.
We note method claim 1 does not specify who or what performs the
recited steps or acts of “transmitting” and “displaying.” Regarding
limitations L1 and L2, the Examiner finds:
[Roberts teaches] generating a validation response based on the
identified certified electronic credential record; and transmitting
the validation response to the credentialer validation portal
(ROBERTS, Fig. 3-4, and par 0052-0055);
ROBERTS does not explicitly disclose request being redirected
from credentialer validation portal interface, and “displaying
validation information based on at least a portion of the
validation response at the credentialer validation portal
interface”, however, in an analogous art in network
communication and most specifically, document transmission,
Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

15
Ki disclosed the concept of redirecting request for document to
a target server (Ki, Fig. 3, and par 0036, 0055, a
document request received at content service server from user is
redirected to content provider server), and displaying
information based on at least a portion of the returned data from
the contents provider server at the contents service server
portal interface (Ki, par 0060, the redirection agent program
“receives the result, if necessary, performs additional
conversion, and then provides the document to the web browser
of the user”);
Final Act. 4.
Based upon our review of the record, and given the breadth of the
disputed claim terms we have addressed above, we find a preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings. Id. As
guided by our reviewing court: “‘the question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not
merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made.’” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir.
1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)). (Emphasis
added); see also MPEP § 2123.
Although Appellant additionally urges that combining Ki with the
teachings of Roberts “makes little sense” (Appeal Br. 13, ¶ 2), we find Ki at
least evidences that the general concept of redirection of information flow
was well known in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention, and thus
would have produced predictable results when combined with the teachings
Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

16
and suggestions of the primary Roberts reference, in the manner proffered
by the Examiner. See Final Act. 4–5; Ki, Fig. 3, “redirection system 300.” 7
Appellant further urges “there is no ‘certified electronic credential
validation request and proffered authentication information redirected from a
credentialer validation portal interface provided by a credentialer’ to be
found in Roberts.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant cites to Robert’s Figure 4 in
support and contends: “The claims, on the other hand, relate to validating a
‘certified electronic credential’ issued by a credentialer, e.g., whether the
credentialer issued the credential to the credentialee.” Appeal Br. 11.
However, Roberts ¶ 39 expressly teaches: “A Credential Certificate
can comprise the visual representation of the credential and all of the
metadata related to it and can serve to verify the provenance of the
credential.” The Examiner relies upon Ki for teaching the redirection of
information flow, as discussed above. Thus, Roberts’ paragraph 39, in
combination with Ki, buttresses the Examiner’s responsive explanation
bridging pages 8 and 9 of the Answer regarding this issue. 8
Our reviewing court provides applicable guidance. “Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the

7 See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) (“[A]
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).

8 “Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior
art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific
Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Moreover,
an obviousness inquiry is not limited to the prior art’s preferred
embodiment. See, e.g., Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1370
(Fed. Cir. 2007).

Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

17
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Keller, 642 F.2d
at 425). In determining obviousness, a reference “must be read, not in
isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a
whole.” Id. (emphasis added).
Appellant also contends the Specification (¶¶ 8, 56) criticizes other
prior art approaches (Appeal Br. 7). To the extent that Appellant is
advancing a “teaching” away argument, we note the proper test is whether
one or more of the references relied upon by the Examiner “teaches away”
from the invention claimed, not whether Appellant’s Specification criticizes
other prior art approaches. Virtually all patent applications (and patents)
mention the shortcomings of prior art approaches in the “Background of the
Invention” section. The mere failure of a reference to mention alternatives
known in the art does not constitute a teaching away from using the known
elements. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d
1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away […] if it
merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does
not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the
invention claimed.”).
On this record, we are not persuaded that combining the respective
familiar elements of the cited Roberts and Ki references in the manner
proffered by the Examiner (also Final Act. 4–5) would have been “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” at the time of
Appellants’ invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

18
Based upon our review of the record, and given the breadth of the
disputed claim terms that we have addressed above, we find a preponderance
of the evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and
ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness regarding Rejection A of
representative independent claim 1.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness Rejection A of
independent representative claim 1. Grouped claims 2–9, 11, 17, 18, 22, 26,
27, 29, and 30 are also rejected under Rejection A, and were not separately
argued. Accordingly, these grouped claims fall with representative
independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Rejection B of claims 10, 12–16, 19–21, 23–25, and 28 under § 103
Regarding Rejection B of dependent claims 10, 12–16, 19–21, 23–25
and 28, Appellant avers that the various security features of the tertiary
Johnson’s reference “do not teach or suggest a credentialer validation portal
interface as recited in the claims.” Appeal Br. 13–14.
However, we have fully addressed above the specific reasons why we
find Roberts and Ki teach or at least suggest the disputed “credentialer
validation portal interface,” as discussed above regarding Rejection A of
independent claim 1. Appellant advances no further separate, substantive
arguments regarding the remaining claims rejected under Rejection B.
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness Rejection B of claims
dependent 10, 12–16, 19–21, 23–25, and 28.

Appeal 2018-004011
Application 14/855,537

19
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–30, as being obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, over the combined teachings and suggestions of the
cited references.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 11,
17, 18,
22, 26,
27, 29, 30
103 Roberts, Ki 1–9, 11,
17, 18,
22, 26,
27, 29, 30

10,12–16,
19–21,
23–25, 28
103 Roberts, Ki,
Johnson
10,12–16,
19–21,
23–25, 28

Overall
Outcome
1–30

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