Dryer, Trevor D. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 31, 2020

13103957 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 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.
13/103,957 05/09/2011 Trevor D. Dryer 327696-000016 1250
155998 7590 07/31/2020
DLA PIPER LLP US - Intuit
ATTN: PATENT GROUP
11911 Freedom Dr.
Suite 300
RESTON, VA 20190
EXAMINER
GOTTSCHALK, MARTIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2020 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):
PatentProsecutionRes@dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TREVOR D. DRYER, ERAN ARBEL, ALEXANDER S. RAN,
AJAY TRIPATHI, DOUGLAS LETHIN, BENNETT R. BLANK, and
EUGENE KRIVOPALTSEV

Appeal 2019-000801
Application 13/103,957
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 69–83 and 85–94. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

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 Intuit Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000801
Application 13/103,957

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
69. A computer-implemented method for processing
data related to an electronic transaction involving a consumer
and a merchant, the method comprising:
an electronic payment device of the merchant generating
authorization data embodying data of a transaction involving
the consumer and the merchant;
establishing a near field communication connection
between the electronic payment device of the merchant and a
mobile communication device of the consumer when the
electronic payment device and the mobile communication
device are in contact with or located in proximity to each other;
the electronic payment device transmitting the
authorization data to the mobile communication device through
the near field communication connection, wherein the
authorization data is transmitted from the mobile
communication device through a first network to a first
computer hosting data of electronic payment instruments a
plurality of consumers; and
the electronic payment device transmitting the
authorization data generated by the electronic payment device
through a second network to a second computer of an electronic
payment processor, wherein the authorization data generated by
the electronic payment device is presented by the second
computer to the first computer to request electronic payment
data of the consumer associated with the authorization data, the
mobile communication device serves as a mobile wallet without
transmitting data of an electronic payment instrument utilized
by the consumer to the electronic payment device, and the
authorization data is to be used by the first computer to
determine whether payment to the merchant should be
authorized to complete the transaction involving the mobile
communication device.
Appeal 2019-000801
Application 13/103,957

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Nobrega et al. (“Nobrega”) US 2002/0107791 A1 Aug. 8, 2002
Varadarajan US 2011/0238573 A1 Sept. 29, 2011
Jain US 2012/0143707 A1 June 7, 2012

REJECTIONS2
I. Claims 69–73, 77, 79–83, and 85–94 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nobrega and Varadarajan.
II. Claims 74–76 and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nobrega, Varadarajan, and Jain.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 69 recites, in part, “an electronic payment device
of the merchant generating authorization data,” “the electronic payment
device transmitting the authorization data to [a] mobile communication
device through the near field communication connection,” “the authorization
data . . . transmitted from the mobile communication device through a first
network to a first computer hosting data of electronic payment instruments a
plurality of consumers,” and “the electronic payment device transmitting the

2 In addition to the rejections enumerated herein, the Final Office Action
(pages 2–6) rejects claims 69–83 and 85–94 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This
rejection is withdrawn. Answer 3.
Appeal 2019-000801
Application 13/103,957

4
authorization data generated by the electronic payment device through a
second network to a second computer of an electronic payment processor.”
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s combination of Nobrega
and Varadarajan does not perform both of the claimed transmissions of the
“authorization data”: (1) from the “mobile communication device through a
first network to a first computer”; and (2) from the “electronic payment
device” “through a second network to a second computer.” Appeal Br. 39,
43–44.
The Examiner maps the transmission paths of the claimed
“authorization data” to those of Nobrega’s “session ID.” See Answer 4–5.
Further, in the Examiner’s analysis, the claimed “electronic payment device
of the merchant” maps to the “merchant’s POS terminal” in Nobrega. Final
Action 6; Nobrega ¶¶ 51–59. In addition, the Examiner maps the claimed
“mobile communication device of the consumer” to the “phone” (also
“cellular phone” and “consumer’s phone”) of Nobrega. Final Action 7;
¶¶ 51–60.
As the Examiner acknowledges, Nobrega’s “session ID” is generated
by a “commerce platform” and is, thereafter, transmitted through a network
to the “merchant’s POS terminal.” Id. at 4; Nobrega ¶ 59, Fig. 4A.
Nobrega’s “session ID is then communicated to the consumer,” and, finally,
from the consumer’s phone to the “commerce platform”:
The generation of the session ID and its presentation to
the consumer offers the opportunity to “close the loop” and
identify the consumer. This is accomplished by providing a
phone application to the user, via the commerce platform,
which allows the user to associate himself with the newly
acquired session ID.
Nobrega ¶¶ 59, 60.
Appeal 2019-000801
Application 13/103,957

5
Yet, Nobrega does not disclose the claimed “electronic payment
device transmitting the authorization data generated by the electronic
payment device through a second network to a second computer of an
electronic payment processor.” In the identified disclosure of Nobrega, the
only transmission of the “session ID” from the “POS terminal” is to the
“phone.” Nobrega ¶ 59. With regard to the elements of claim 69, this
transmission corresponds to the claimed “electronic payment device
transmitting the authorization data to the mobile communication device.”
The Examiner relies upon Varadarajan to teach the claimed
“electronic payment device of the merchant generating authorization data.”
Final Action 7–8; Answer 5. However, even as modified by Varadarajan’s
identified teaching, there is no transmission of Nobrega’s “session ID” that
corresponds to the claimed “electronic payment device transmitting the
authorization data generated by the electronic payment device through a
second network to a second computer of an electronic payment processor.”
The other independent claim in the Appeal, claim 88, includes
limitations substantially identical to the features of claim 69, addressed
above. Specifically, claim 88 recites: “an electronic payment device of the
merchant generating authorization data embodying data of a transaction
involving the consumer and the merchant”; “the electronic payment device
transmitting the authorization data to the mobile communication device
through the near field communication connection”; “transmitting the
authorization data from the mobile communication device through a first
network to a first computer hosting respective data of respective electronic
payment instruments of respective consumers”; and “the electronic payment
Appeal 2019-000801
Application 13/103,957

6
device transmitting the authorization data through a second network to a
second computer of an electronic payment processor.”
The Examiner analyses these limitations together with the similar
limitations of claim 69. Final Action 6–14. Accordingly, our analysis of
claim 69 applies equally to claim 88.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of independent claims 69
and 88, and dependent claims 70–83, 85–87, and 89–94, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
69–73, 77,
79–83, 85–
94
103(a) Nobrega,
Varadarajan
69–73, 77,
79–83,
85–94
74–76, 78 103(a) Nobrega,
Varadarajan, Jain
74–76, 78
Overall Outcome 69–83,
85–94

REVERSED