Marc Davis et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 17, 2021

2020004611 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2021)

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.
13/374,526 12/30/2011 Marc E. Davis SE2-1058-US 5386
80118 7590 09/17/2021
Constellation Law Group, PLLC
P.O. Box 580
Tracyton, WA 98393
EXAMINER
LEE, PHILIP C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2021 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):
ISFDocketInbox@intven.com
Tyler@constellationlaw.com
admin@constellationlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARC E. DAVIS, MATTHEW G. DYOR, WILLIAM GATES,
XUEDONG HUANG, RODERICK A. HYDE, EDWARD K. Y. JUNG,
JORDIN T. KARE, ROYCE A. LEVIEN, RICHARD T. LORD,
ROBERT W. LORD, QI LU, MARK A. MALAMUD,
NATHAN P. MYHRVOLD, SATYA NADELLA, DANIEL REED,
HARRY SHUM, CLARENCE T. TEGREENE, and
LOWELL L. WOOD JR.
____________

Appeal 2020-004611
Application 13/374,526
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 35–39, 41, 42, 46–51, 57, 59, and 71–76,

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Elwha LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004611
Application 13/374,526

2
which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
II. DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Specification discloses techniques for “data capture and data
handling.” Spec. ¶ 1. The techniques generally involve regulating
information flow including negotiation of personas between parties to a
transaction. See Spec. ¶¶ 153–326. A persona involves “personal
information” for a transaction: “[A]lgorithms commonly used in web page
analysis may be used to determine a transaction scale as a basis for creating
an appropriate persona containing an appropriate level of personal
information for that transaction.” Id. ¶ 156.
The disclosed system accepts “at least one request for personal
information from a party to a transaction,” such as “for name, phone
number, email address, and credit card information during a transaction to
purchase an app in an app store.” Spec. ¶ 287. Then, the system evaluates
the transaction, including “many intermediate levels of interaction value”
that “may be assigned based on a detected value present in the web page
code or other attribute of the transaction.” Id. ¶ 289. In “higher dollar value
transactions, presentation of a persona containing more detailed personal
information may be necessary.” Id. One example is “for a car purchase, a
persona including credit information, credit history, and personal financial
asset data may be required.” Id. In these instances, “[p]ersonal information
may be obtainable as a matter of course” and “may be directly provided . . .
for the purpose of facilitating completion of transaction.” Id. ¶ 290.
Appeal 2020-004611
Application 13/374,526

3
Independent claim 35 follows:
35. A system, comprising:
circuitry configured for receiving one or more elements of
personal information, the one or more elements of personal
information entered via a user interface of a local device and
associated with a user of the local device;
circuitry configured for storing the one or more elements of
personal information in a local data store coupled with the local
device;
circuitry configured for detecting a checkout webpage being
received by the local device in association with the user of the
local device having initiated an online purchase via the local
device from a remote vendor;
circuitry configured for parsing, by a persona negotiation agent
of the local device, at least a first portion of markup language
code received by the local device and capable of causing at least
one browser of the local device to render, at least partly via at
least one display device coupled with the local device, at least
one portion of the checkout webpage received by the local device
to determine, through the parsing the at least the first portion of
markup language code, at least one request by the remote vendor
for at least some personal information associated with the user of
the local device and at least one monetary value of the online
purchase;
circuitry configured for assessing an amount of personal
information necessary to complete the online purchase at least
partly based on the at least one monetary value of the online
purchase;
circuitry configured for determining a persona for use in
completing the online purchase, including at least populating the
persona with at least some personal information from the local
data store coupled with the local device in accordance with the
assessed amount of personal information necessary to complete
the online purchase;
circuitry configured for attempting to complete the online
purchase using the persona, including at least presenting, by the
Appeal 2020-004611
Application 13/374,526

4
local device, at least a portion of the persona in response to the
at least one request for personal information associated with the
user of the local device; and
circuitry configured for detecting whether the online purchase
was completed, including at least parsing, by the persona
negotiation agent of the local device, at least a second portion of
markup language code received by the local device and capable
of causing the at least one browser of the local device to render,
at least partly via the at least one display device coupled with the
local device, at least one webpage received by the local device
subsequent to attempting to complete the online purchase using
the persona to determine, through the parsing of the at least the
second portion of markup language code, if there are one or more
indications that the persona had an insufficient amount of
personal information associated with the user of the local device
for completion of the online purchase.
III. REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal follows:
Name Reference Date
Leonard et al. (“Leonard”) US 2002/0046109 A1 Apr. 18, 2002
Moneymaker et al.
(“Moneymaker”)
US 2002/0049708 A1 Apr. 25, 2002
Wheeler et al. (“Wheeler”) US 2003/0177361 A1 Sept. 18, 2003
Vishik et al. (“Vishik”) US 2003/0204445 A1 Oct. 30, 2003
Weichert et al.
(“Weichert”)
US 2004/0117302 A1 June 17, 2004
Dettinger et al.
(“Dettinger”)
US 2004/0260658 A1 Dec. 23, 2004
Lu et al. (“Lu”) US 2006/0079284 A1 Apr. 13, 2006
Appeal 2020-004611
Application 13/374,526

5
IV. REJECTIONS
Claims 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 46, 47, 49–51, 57, and 71–73 stand
rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Leonard,
Moneymaker, and Weichert. Final Act. 6.
Claim 37 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Leonard, Moneymaker, Weichert, and Dettinger. Final
Act. 40.
Claim 48 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Leonard, Moneymaker, Weichert, and Wheeler. Final
Act. 41.
Claim 59 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Leonard, Moneymaker, Weichert, and Lu. Final Act. 43.
Claims 74–76 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Leonard, Moneymaker, Weichert, and Vishik. Final Act.
44.
V. OPINION
Claims 35–39, 41, 42, 46–51, 57, 59, and 71–75
Claim 35 recites (emphasis added)
parsing. . . at least a first portion of markup language code
received by the local device and capable of causing at least one
browser of the local device to render, at least partly via at least
one display device coupled with the local device, at least one
portion of the checkout webpage received by the local device to
determine, through the parsing the at least the first portion of
markup language code, at least one request by the remote vendor
for at least some personal information associated with the user
Appeal 2020-004611
Application 13/374,526

6
of the local device and at least one monetary value of the online
purchase . . . .
[and]
. . . .
detecting whether the online purchase was completed, including
at least parsing. . . at least a second portion of markup language
code received by the local device and capable of causing the at
least one browser of the local device to render, at least partly via
the at least one display device coupled with the local device, at
least one webpage received by the local device subsequent to
attempting to complete the online purchase using the persona to
determine, through the parsing of the at least the second portion
of markup language code, if there are one or more indications
that the persona had an insufficient amount of personal
information associated with the user of the local device for
completion of the online purchase.
The Examiner relies on Leonard’s use of a parser to detect the
presence of a special text in the check-out page, and Leonard’s subsequent
display of a screen to allow the user to input user-specific purchase
information, to teach parsing a first portion of markup language code to
render a display with a checkout webpage and to determine a request for at
least some personal information of the user. Final Act. 7–8 (citing Leonard
¶ 73, Fig. 6). The Examiner relies on Weichert’s use of user biometric
information to complete a transaction to teach detecting whether “an online
purchase was completed . . . by determining . . . if there are one or more
indications that the persona had an insufficient amount of personal
information associated with the user of the local device for completion of the
online purchase” See id. at 12 (quoting claim 1) (citing Weichert ¶ 85).
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Weichert’s “biometric information” is a
type of “personal information” as claimed. Ans. 5.
Appeal 2020-004611
Application 13/374,526

7
At cited paragraph 73, Leonard discloses that the “browser extension
70 installed on the client computer system 20 detects the presence of the
embedded XML or other special text in the HTML check-out ‘page’
preferably using a parser,” and “thereafter launches and displays a ‘window’
on the client computer system 20 to provide the user with the ability to input
user-specific purchase information, such as the user’s name and address,
credit card number and shipping information (step 250).” Leonard ¶ 73.
Leonard also discloses that “the merchant server computer system 30
processes the user-specific purchase information contained in the received
HTML form post, including processing/validating the user’s credit card
number.” Id. ¶ 90.
At cited paragraph 85, Weichert discloses that the “checkout screen
800-1 includes an account entry portion 804 and a biometric portion 652,”
and that the “user 110 follows instructions 808 on the account entry portion
804 for entering some machine readable payment information” and
“interacts with the biometric reader 516 according to instructions 656 to
submit biometric information.” Weichert ¶ 85. Weichert also discloses that,
“[a]fter the biometric reader 516 gathers information, the authentication
processor 335 does a one-to-many comparison to authenticate the user 110
and access account information.” Id. ¶ 86.
Appellant argues that Weichert’s “biometric information” cannot “be
parsed from markup language code.” Appeal Br. 11.
This argument does not undermine the Examiner’s showing. The
Examiner relies on Leonard, not Weichert, to teach parsing information from
markup language code. See Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 8. One cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are
Appeal 2020-004611
Application 13/374,526

8
based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Leonard
teaches “parsing a second HTML to display a receipt (i.e. an indication that
the transaction is a success and the personal information is sufficient),” but
does not teach “parsing the HTML to determine an indication for insufficient
personal information,” for which the Examiner relies on Weichert’s
completing a transaction based on whether the biometric information
matches. Ans. 7 (citing Leonard ¶¶ 90–93, 73; Weichert ¶ 85).
Appellant also argues that the Specification does not support “a
mapping of biometric information as ‘personal information’ of a user in an
online transaction.” Appeal Br. 11. Specifically, Appellant argues that the
Specification “gives examples of personal information including, for
example, ‘name, physical address, email address, phone number, or credit
card information as the personal information,’” but would not include
Weichert’s “biometric information” because the Specification does not
support using “fingerprint readers, retinal scanners, or other devices for
capturing biometric data.” Id. at 12 (citing Spec. Fig. 19).
This argument does not undermine the Examiner’s showing.
Paragraph 117 of the Specification describes “identifier data associated with
at least one of . . . a user’s biometric measurement.” Spec. ¶ 117. An
example includes a “username associated with a photograph of the user as a
biometric measurement verifying that a real-world user is associated with
the username.” Id. Therefore, the claimed “personal information” for a
persona includes biometric measurements, as supported by the Specification.
Appellant’s argument based on the Specification lacks support and fails to
Appeal 2020-004611
Application 13/374,526

9
show error in the Examiner’s finding that the “personal information” for a
persona in claim 35 includes biometric measurements and reads on
Weichert’s “biometric information.” See Weichert ¶ 85.
In summary, Appellant does not persuasively explain how the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Leonard, Moneymaker,
and Weichert teaches or suggests “determin[ing], through the parsing the at
least the first portion of markup language code, at least one request by the
remote vendor for at least some personal information associated with the
user of the local device,” as recited in claim 35.
Based on the foregoing discussion, Appellant does not show error in
the Examiner’s findings and determination of the obviousness of claim 35.
Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s findings and determination of
the obviousness of independent claims 46 and 47, or dependent claims 36–
39, 41, 42, 48–51, 57, 59, and 71–75, separately from claim 35. See Appeal
Br. 13, 14–15, 16–17. Accordingly, claims 36–39, 41, 42, 46–51, 57, 59,
and 71–75 fall with claim 35.
Claim 76
Claim 76 recites
attempting to complete the online purchase using the persona, the
persona allowing for substantially anonymous completion of the
online purchase on power of a guarantee of the online purchase
by at least one third party in exchange for a fee paid by the user
of the local device to the at least one third party to guard against
a default in the online purchase.
The Examiner relies on Vishik’s operator of the server charging a fee
to allow anonymous transactions to teach performing a transaction “in
exchange for a fee paid by the user to the system that guarantees the
anonymous transaction to guard against a default of a non-anonymous
Appeal 2020-004611
Application 13/374,526

10
purchase.” Final Act. 46 (citing Vishik ¶ 44). Specifically, the Examiner
finds that “Vishik teaches guarantee of the online purchase (guarantee of the
online purchase to guard against default) in exchange for a fee paid to the
third party (buyer fee to the server 102).” Ans. 9 (citing Vishik ¶¶ 18, 56,
44, 30).
At cited paragraph 44, Vishik describes “anonymous transactions,
such as where the operator of server 102 charges a fee for allowing
anonymous transactions.” Vishik ¶ 44.
At cited paragraph 56, Vishik discloses that “[s]erver 102 and/or an
intermediary helps to complete the transaction,” including “instructing the
seller client 112 to ship the ordered product to the intermediary, so the
intermediary can receive and ship the product to the buying user,” including
“paying for the product using the intermediary’s account and then billing or
charging the buying user for that amount.” Vishik ¶ 56.
At cited paragraph 30, Vishik adds that the “server 102 may . . .
mak[e] sure that payment is made.” Vishik ¶ 30.
Appellant argues that the claim “specifically recites that the fee for the
guarantee is paid to the third party,” but that, in contrast, Vishik’s operator
of a server is the one who “charges a fee for allowing anonymous
transactions.” Appeal Br. 14.
This argument does not undermine the Examiner’s showing.
Paragraph 373 of the Specification describes completing a purchase “on
power of the guarantee by the custodian.” Spec. ¶ 373. This example
includes “the custodian guaranteeing the purchase may charge a user a fee
for the guarantee to guard against default.” Id. Therefore, the claimed
Appeal 2020-004611
Application 13/374,526

11
attempting to complete the online purchase using the persona . . .
on power of a guarantee of the online purchase by at least one
third party in exchange for a fee paid by the user of the local
device to the at least one third party to guard against a default in
the online purchase
includes an intermediary who charges a fee to complete the purchase on
behalf of the user, as supported by the Specification.
Appellant fails to explain clearly why charging a fee to complete a
purchase on behalf of a user, in claim 76, precludes Vishik’s intermediary
charging a fee to complete a purchase and then billing for the amount paid
and ensuring payment.
In summary, Appellant does not persuasively explain how the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Leonard, Moneymaker,
Weichert, and Vishik teaches or suggests
attempting to complete the online purchase using the persona . . .
on power of a guarantee of the online purchase by at least one
third party in exchange for a fee paid by the user of the local
device to the at least one third party to guard against a default in
the online purchase,
as recited in claim 76.
Based on the foregoing discussion, Appellant does not show error in
the Examiner’s findings and determination of the obviousness of claim 76.
VI. CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 35–39, 41, 42,
46–51, 57, 59, and 71–76 under § 103(a).
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
35, 36, 38,
39, 41, 42,
103(a) Leonard, Moneymaker,
Weichert
35, 36, 38,
39, 41, 42,

Appeal 2020-004611
Application 13/374,526

12
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
46, 47,
49–51, 57,
71–73
46, 47,
49–51, 57,
71–73
37 103(a) Leonard, Moneymaker,
Weichert, Dettinger
37
48 103(a) Leonard, Moneymaker,
Weichert, Wheeler
48
59 103(a) Leonard, Moneymaker,
Weichert, Lu
59
74–76 103(a) Leonard, Moneymaker,
Weichert, Vishik
74–76
Overall
Outcome
35–39, 41,
42, 46–51,
57, 59,
71–76

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