Ex Parte AnsariDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 5, 201613495986 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 5, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/495,986 06/13/2012 15608 7590 07/05/2016 Blackhawk Network, Inc. C/O Wick Phillips Gould & Martin, LLP 3131 McKinney A venue, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75204 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ansar Ansari 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. 4556.14602 6796 EXAMINER KANERVO, VIRPI H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3691 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 07/05/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANSAR ANSARI Appeal2014-003951 1 Application 13/495,9862 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Our decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed August 23, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed December 19, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed October 22, 2013) and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed March 25, 2013). 2 Appellant identifies Blackhawk Network, Inc. as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal2014-003951 Application 13/495,986 CLAHvIED TI'-JVENTION Appellant's claimed invention relates generally to "a system for providing at least one transaction credit (TC)" (Spec. i-f 4). Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system for providing a transaction credit, the system compnsmg: [a] a reception processor configured to receive a transaction credit request; [b] a decision processor configured to determine approval of the request; [ c] an accessible resource encoded in a computer-readable medium configured to interface with the processors of the system; and [ d] a response processor configured to distribute an approved transaction credit and/ or an alternate message, wherein the reception, decision, and response processors are capable of interfacing with each other to coincidentally receive a user request, determine approval of the request, create a transaction credit account; and distribute the approved transaction credit to a user or third party. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Erikson (US 2007/0228153 Al, pub. Oct. 4, 2007). Claims 4, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Erikson and Ahlers (US 2009/0254441 Al, pub. Oct. 8, 2009). Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Erikson and Zalik (US 2008/0177655 Al, pub. July 24, 2008). 2 Appeal2014-003951 Application 13/495,986 Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Erikson, Zalik, and Ross (US 2012/0265681 Al, pub. Oct. 18, 2012). Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Erikson and Goermer (US 2011/0035446 Al, pub. Feb. 10, 2011). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Erikson and Zara (US 2002/0169648 Al, pub. Nov. 14, 2002). Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Erikson and Benkert (US 2011/0125645 Al, pub. May 26, 2011). ANALYSIS Independent claims 1, 12, and 20, and dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Erikson does not disclose a "transaction credit," as recited by independent claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 5-9; see also Reply Br. 5---6). Instead, we agree with, and adopt the Examiner's findings and rationales as set forth at pages 2 and 8-10 of the Answer (see Ans. 2 (citing Erikson i-fi-131-33, 36, Figs. 2, 3)). We add the following discussion for emphasis. Erikson is directed to a system "for obtaining a transaction account with the use of a consumer's identification card" (Erikson i-f 15). More particularly, Erikson discloses a process wherein a "consumer requests a transaction account application" using a "transaction account application [which] is automatically populated with data scanned from [an] identification card" (id. i130). Erikson discloses that a "transaction account provider receives the application" and processes the application by 3 Appeal2014-003951 Application 13/495,986 "determin[ing] the validity of the identification card" and using "a credit report [which] is transmitted to the transaction account provider" (id. i-fi-1 31- 33). Erikson further discloses [t]he credit report is then used in the decision to approve or deny the transaction account application. In step 222, the result of the decision is transmitted back to the credit requester (e.g., the store merchant), and the transaction account is then either approved or rejected in step 224. (Id. i133). We also note that Erikson discloses that "[t]he term 'transaction card' as used herein may include any type of open or closed charge card, credit card, debit card, stored value card" (id. i120). Appellant argues that Erikson fails to disclose a "transaction credit," as required by independent claims 1, 12, and 20 because "the term 'transaction credit' as defined by the Specification encompasses the term 'prepaid value', and therefore Applicant claims 'prepaid value' wherever the term 'transaction credit' appears in the claims" (Appeal Br. 5-6 (citing Spec. i112)). However, contrary to Appellant's argument, the Specification does not lexicographically define the term "transaction credit;" instead, we find the Specification provides non-limiting examples only. For example, the Specification discloses that [i]n some embodiments, a TC may be any form or transmission that allows a party to apply the credit of a prepaid value of the credit toward the purchase of any item, with any seller, that may accept the value of the TC, such as but not limited to a gift card, a coupon, a purchase credit, a discount, or any similar physical or virtual form or transmission as may be known in the art. (Spec. i-f 12 (emphasis added)). The Specification further discloses TC accounts, and/or the value therein, may be partitioned to accommodate multiple providers of prepayment or a credit line for the TC, or for sharing the use or value of a TC among more 4 Appeal2014-003951 Application 13/495,986 than one customer. A credit line assigned to a TC allows a TC to be issued without prepayment, but with a value assigned passed upon an approved line of credit obligated for the value of the TC. (Id. i-f 11 (emphasis added)). There is a heavy presumption that claim terms take on their "plain, ordinary, and accustomed meaning to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art." See Prima TekII, L.L.C. v. Polypap, S.A.R.L., 318 F.3d 1143, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although Appellant may overcome that presumption by acting as their own lexicographer so as to assign a special definition to each claim term, that definition must be "clearly set forth" and "explicit." Id. Here, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the Specification that the term "transaction credit" may refer to either a "prepayment," i.e., "prepaid value," as Appellant contends (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 6), or a "credit line," which Appellant's Specification states "allows a TC to be issued without prepayment, but with a value assigned passed upon an approved line of credit obligated for the value of the TC" (Spec. i-f 11). Thus, we agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 9-10 (citing Erikson i-fi-130, 33)) that Erikson's transaction credit account constitutes a "transaction credit," within the meaning of independent claims 1, 12, and 20, under a broad, but reasonable, interpretation. We also are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellant's argument that Erikson fails to disclose "distributing an instantly created transaction credit to a user or third party" (Appeal Br. 7-9; see also 7-8). Appellant's argument is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, i.e., none of independent claims 1, 12, and 20 recites the distribution of "an instantly created transaction credit." And, to 5 Appeal2014-003951 Application 13/495,986 the extent Appellant argues that Erikson fails to disclose "the distribution of its transaction credit account" because Erikson fails to deliver "its transaction credit account to a user or third party" (Reply Br. 7-8), we agree with the Examiner that "[a]pproving the transaction credit account is distributing the transaction credit because when the account is approved, the transaction credit exists" (Ans. 10 (citing Erikson i-fi-130, 33)). In this regard, we note that Appellant's Specification discloses that "distributing the at least one TC may not require an issuer to physically produce or distribute a card" (Spec. i-f 12), but may include "any method know[n] in the art for providing a negotiable credit to a user" (id.). In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We also sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19, which are not argued separately except based on their dependence on independent claims 1 and 12 (see Appeal Br. 10-11). DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation