Square, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 14, 2021

2021002608 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 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. 16/051,381 07/31/2018 Yenliang Chen SQ-0347-US1-C2 4696 132781 7590 12/14/2021 Maynard Cooper & Gale, P.C. (Square) 655 Gallatin Street, SW Huntsville, AL 35801 EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3687 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/14/2021 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): ipdocket@maynardcooper.com mdunn@maynardcooper.com tebbert@maynardcooper.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YENLIANG CHEN, ISREAL BLAGDAN, MICHAEL C. LAMFALUSI, KARTIK LAMBA, and JEREMY WADE ____________ Appeal 2021-002608 Application 16/051,381 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-4, 6-21, and 23-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed November 23, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 3, 2021), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 4, 2021) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed June 23, 2020). Appellant identifies Square, Inc. as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2021-002608 Application 16/051,381 2 CLAIMED INVENTION The Specification states that “in accordance with various embodiments, approaches provide for a point-of-sale system configured to enhance financial transactions by streamlining and simplifying components needed in performing a financial transaction” and that “[t]he point-of-sale system includes a secure enclave for accurately receiving and handling secure data provided into the point-of-sale system” (Spec. ¶ 36). Claims 1 and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A payment terminal, comprising: [(a)] a secure processor; [(b)] a first display connected to the secure processor; [(c)] a first user input device associated with the first display and connected to the secure processor; [(d)] a payment instrument reader connected to the secure processor; [(e)] a main processor separate from the secure processor, the main processor connected to the secure processor; and [(f)] a housing enclosing the secure processor and the main processor. REJECTIONS Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-21, 23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Saitoh (US 2015/0324781 A1, published Nov. 12, 2015). Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Saitoh and Ko (US 2012/0286040 A1, published Nov. 15, 2012). Appeal 2021-002608 Application 16/051,381 3 Claims 10, 11, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Saitoh and Gomez et al. (US 2014/0097249 A1, published Apr. 10, 2014) (“Gomez”). Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Saitoh and Falzone et al. (US 2012/0066079 A1, published Mar. 15, 2012) (“Falzone”). Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Saitoh and Armstrong-Muntner (US 2014/0078070 A1, published Mar. 20, 2014). Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Saitoh and Kawan et al. (US 8,117,125 B1, issued Feb. 14, 2012) (“Kawan”). ANALYSIS Anticipation Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 18 as anticipated by Saitoh at least because Saitoh does not disclose “a housing enclosing the secure processor and the main processor,” i.e., limitation (f), as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 18 (Appeal Br. 8-11). More particularly, Appellant maintains that, rather than describing a housing enclosing both a secure processor and a main processor, Saitoh discloses (in paragraph 11, on which the Examiner relies) separate housings for individual processing units, i.e., “a first housing main body that accommodates a non-secure first information processing unit . . . and a second housing main body that accommodates a secure second information processing unit” (id. at 8). Appeal 2021-002608 Application 16/051,381 4 Saitoh is directed to a portable settlement terminal device “used to perform a procedure of a settlement process in transaction” (Saitoh ¶ 2), and discloses with reference to Figure 1A, reproduced below, that the terminal device includes: (1) a first housing main body 21 that accommodates a non- secure first information processing unit including a first input display unit 41, which displays an amount of money related to settlement; and (2) a second housing main body 23 that accommodates a secure second information processing unit, including a second input display unit 45 to which authentication information of a card used for settlement is input (id. ¶¶ 11, 27-28). Figure 1 is a front view of a settlement terminal Appeal 2021-002608 Application 16/051,381 5 Figure 3 of Saitoh, reproduced below, is an exploded plan view of the settlement terminal. Figure 3 is an exploded plan view showing a state in which the first housing main body is exploded from the second housing main body of the terminal device shown in Figure 1A Appeal 2021-002608 Application 16/051,381 6 As shown in the figure, Saitoh discloses that a seat unit 25, to which first housing 21 is detachably attached, extends from second housing 21; thus, when first housing 21 is attached to seat unit 25, first display unit 41 and second input display unit 45 are arranged on the same surface (Saitoh ¶¶ 28, 38). A lock structure (not shown), capable of integrally fixing the housings to each other or unfixing the housings, also is provided at the first and second housings (id. ¶ 39). Responding to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner takes the position that the claims can be construed, under a broadest, reasonable interpretation, to mean that “each processor has a housing,” which Saitoh clearly discloses, and not that “each processor is enclosed by the same housing” (Ans. 3-4; see also Final Act. 12). The Examiner maintains that interpreting the claim language in this way is consistent with Appellant’s Specification, citing Figures 1 and 2 of the Specification as showing “two different units with two different processors with their own housing” (id. at 3). But, the Examiner seemingly overlooks the disclosure in Appellant’s Figure 2 (cont.) where, as Appellant points out, SoC processor 250 and the secure MCU 272 are enclosed within the same housing, i.e., consumer terminal 212 (Reply Br. 2; see also Appeal Br. 10). The Examiner posits that, even accepting Appellant’s “narrow claim construction that there is a single housing enclosing both processors,” Saitoh “discloses a seat unit[,] which serves as a single housing when both devices are connected using the seat unit” and “in Figure 4, the first CPU and the second CPU both seem to fall under the same housing” (Final Act. 12). But, we do not agree with the Examiner that placement of the first housing on a seat unit of the second housing, as described in Saitoh with reference to Appeal 2021-002608 Application 16/051,381 7 Figure 3, results in one housing having both processing units, or that Saitoh’s Figure 4 discloses two CPUs enclosed in a single housing. Instead, we agree with Appellant that placement of the first housing on a seat unit of the second housing “results in one housing with a processing unit sitting on top of a second housing with a processing unit” (Appeal Br. 9) and that although Figure 4 “schematically shows first information processing unit 17 touching second information processing unit 19,” it does not show “CPUs in the same housing” and, in fact, “does not indicate the location of the first housing 21 or the second housing 23” (id. at 10). Moreover, in describing Figure 4 in paragraph 40, Saitoh states, “FIG. 4 is a block diagram showing an example of hardware configuration of settlement terminal device 11 of the first exemplary embodiment,” and describes that “[i]n settlement terminal device 11, first information processing unit 17 is provided in first housing 21, and second information processing unit 19 is provided in second housing 23” (Saitoh ¶ 40). We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 11 as anticipated by Saitoh. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19-21, 23, and 27. Obviousness The rejections of dependent claims 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, and 24-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 do not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these dependent claims under Appeal 2021-002608 Application 16/051,381 8 35 U.S.C. § 103 for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 11. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-21, 23, 27 102(a)(2) Saitoh 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-21, 23, 27 7 103 Ko 7 10, 11, 24, 26 103 Saitoh, Gomez 10, 11, 24, 26 14 103 Saitoh, Falzone 14 17 103 Saitoh, Armstrong- Muntner 17 25 103 Saitoh, Kawan 25 Overall Outcome 1-4, 6-21, 23-27 REVERSED