Ex Parte Ansari

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 5, 2016

13495986 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 5, 2016)

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