Ex Parte Pujari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 17, 2017

13332434 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2017)

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. 13/332,434 12/21/2011 Sushant K. Pujari 20110219 6704 25537 7590 VERIZON PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP 1320 North Court House Road 9th Floor ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909 EXAMINER AGWUMEZIE, CHINEDU CHARLES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3685 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/21/2017 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): patents @ verizon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SUSHANT K. PUJARI, LLOYD S. PALMER JR., BRIAN P. THEADO, and KHOA N. NGUYEN Appeal 2016-0024001 Application 13/332,434 Technology Center 3600 Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 2—6, 8—10, and 12— 21. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. The invention relates generally to data communications over a network to support a secure transaction. Spec. 11. Claim 13 is illustrative: 1 The Appellants identify “Verizon Communications Inc. and its subsidiary companies” as the real parties in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2016-002400 Application 13/332,434 13. A method performed by one or more devices within a transaction services hub of a transaction services network, the method comprising: receiving, via an internal distribution network interface, configuration settings for data communication services over the transaction services network between merchant devices and a host device within a customer’s private network; allocating bandwidth, based on the configuration settings, to support the data communication services over the transaction services network between the merchant devices and the host device; establishing, via a multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) network within the transaction services network and based on the configuration settings, a virtual private network (VPN) session between the one or more devices within the transaction services hub and the host device; receiving, by the one or more devices within the transaction services hub and from a first merchant device, a first transaction authorization request directed to the host device, wherein the first transaction authorization request originates via a voice network including a public switched telephone network (PSTN); receiving, by the one or more devices within the transaction services hub and from a second merchant transaction device, a second transaction authorization request directed to the host device, wherein the second transaction authorization request originates via an Internet Protocol (IP) network; routing, by the one or more devices within the transaction services hub and via the VPN session, the first and the second transaction authorization requests to the host device; collecting, by the one or more devices within the transaction services hub, session data associated with each of the first and the second transaction authorization requests; performing, by the one or more devices within the transaction services hub, real-time monitoring of the VPN session; generating, by the one or more devices within the transaction services hub, an alarm signal when the real-time 2 Appeal 2016-002400 Application 13/332,434 monitoring indicates communications are not maintained for a particular interval; storing, in a database within the transaction services hub, the session data and the alarm signal associated with the host device; and providing, to a user device and via a public network connection, an interface to retrieve reports including the stored session data in the database. The Examiner rejected claims 2—6, 8—10, and 12—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fitzgerald (US 2008/0048025 Al, pub. Feb. 28, 2008) and Heinze (US 2008/0049753 Al, pub. Feb. 28, 2008). We REVERSE. ANALYSIS Each of independent claims 13, 19, and 21 recites language either equivalent or substantially equivalent to: receiving, by the one or more devices within the transaction services hub and from a first merchant device, a first transaction authorization request directed to the host device, wherein the first transaction authorization request originates via a voice network including a public switched telephone network (PSTN); receiving, by the one or more devices within the transaction services hub and from a second merchant transaction device, a second transaction authorization request directed to the host device, wherein the second transaction authorization request originates via an Internet Protocol (IP) network; [and] routing, by the one or more devices within the transaction services hub and via the VPN session, the first and the second transaction authorization requests to the host device. 3 Appeal 2016-002400 Application 13/332,434 We are persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments that Fitzgerald fails to disclose receiving a request that originates from a voice network and is directed to a host device, and forwarding the request to the host device over a VPN along with a second request directed to the same host device, which originated on an IP network, as required by the independent claims. Appeal Br. 11—12. More specifically, the Appellants argue the voice call depicted in Figure 1 of Fitzgerald is not directed to the host device, because it is directed to the merchant device, and, thus, does not meet the claim language about being directed to the host device from the merchant device. Id. In addition, the Appellants argue that paragraph 16 of Fitzgerald, cited by the Examiner to support both the voice-originated request and IP-originated request, explicitly states that described method “will not work on telephone orders,” and does not disclose routing. Reply Br. 3^4. Although the Examiner cites Figure 1 and paragraph 71 of Fitzgerald as disclosing the receiving of both the voice and IP-originating requests, and paragraph 16 as disclosing the claimed routing of both requests (Answer 3— 4), in the Response to Arguments, the Examiner states “paragraph [0016] of Fitzgerald, clearly discloses a process of transaction authorization whereby the cardholder sends a voice transaction authorization request via the cardholder’s mobile or computer to the merchant.” Answer 15. Paragraph 16 of Fitzgerald, however, explicitly states the disclosed “Verified by Visa” process “is cumbersome and will not work on telephone orders, and offers little compensation to consumers while taking more time to complete the transaction.” Fitzgerald 116. Paragraph 16, thus, does not disclose the receipt of a voice-network-originating request, as claimed, and as asserted by the Examiner. 4 Appeal 2016-002400 Application 13/332,434 Fitzgerald’s Figure 1 shows voice calls directed to a call center. The Examiner has not explained adequately how voice calls directed to a call center corresponds to voice calls directed to a “host device,” as required by the claims. Additionally, we are unclear as to how Figure 1 discloses routing any voice call along with an IP-originating request, as also required by the claims. Paragraph 71 of Fitzgerald discloses receiving and forwarding, or sending, account information to a processor, or bank, but does not indicate the origin of the information (voice or IP networks), and we are also unclear as to how this portion of Fitzgerald routes two requests together, as claimed. Fitzgerald 171. Based on the cited sections of Fitzgerald to which the Examiner directs us, we are unable to ascertain that Fitzgerald discloses the claimed invention. The Examiner, thus, fails to support sufficiently the case of obviousness of the independent claims. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 13, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), or dependent claims 2—6, 8—10, 12, 14—18, and 20 that were rejected along with claims 13, 19, and 21. DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 2—6, 8—10, and 12—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 5