Ex Parte Becker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 12, 2013

12257220 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EZRA D. BECKER
____________

Appeal 2011-006675
Application 12/257,220
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-211. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed August 3, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed December
28, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed October 28, 2010).
Appeal 2011-006675
Application 12/257,220

2
The invention relates to systems and methods for minimizing the
distortion of the perceived credit risk of a consumer due to the presence of
authorized user trade lines (i.e., credit accounts or other items on a credit
report) on the consumer's credit file (Spec., para. [0002]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A method for evaluating the credit
risk of an individual or entity associated with a
plurality of trade lines, the method comprising the
steps of:
identifying using a first computer process
executing on a computer processor each of the
plurality of trade lines for which the individual or
entity is an authorized user;
combining using a second computer process
executing on a computer processor at least one
characteristic of all said authorized user trade lines
to produce an authorized user trade line total;
combining using a third computer process
executing on a computer processor the at least one
characteristic of all of the plurality of trade lines
for which the individual or entity is a base user to
produce a base user trade line total;
calculating using a forth computer process
executing on a computer processor a ratio between
the authorized user trade line total and the base
user trade line total, wherein the ratio is indicative
of a likelihood that the individual or entity is
attempting to misrepresent the risk associated with
their credit; and
generating using a fifth computer process
executing on a computer processor an alert should
the ratio exceed a user-defined amount.

Appeal 2011-006675
Application 12/257,220

3
1. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lynch (US 2006/0155639, publ. Jul. 13, 2006).

We REVERSE.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Specification
FF1. The Specification “defines an authorized user as an individual
who may use a trade line but has no financial responsibility for any resulting
balance owed” (para. [0006]).

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting Lynch discloses “an
authorized user,” as recited in each of independent claims 1, 8, 18, and 20
(Appeal Br. 17-19; Reply Br. 4-6). The Examiner cites paragraphs [0094]-
[0116] of Lynch as disclosing the recited “authorized user” (Ans. 3-4).
However, “authorized user” has a definition set forth in the Specification
(FF1). The Examiner has not shown how the cited portions of Lynch
disclose an “authorized user” that meets the definition set forth in the
Specification. Indeed, the Response to Arguments section of the Examiner’s
Answer does not make any mention of “authorized user.” This is a method
claim rejected as anticipated. As such, the user’s attributes are given
patentable weight.
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 18, and 20.
For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 2-7, 9-17, 19, and 21.
Appeal 2011-006675
Application 12/257,220

4
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-21 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

Klh