Ex Parte Beeri

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2016

12729434 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
121729,434
69054 7590
RECHES PA TENTS
211 North Union St.
Suite 100
FILING DATE
03/23/2010
06/28/2016
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Zohar Beeri
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.
8113-US 7207
EXAMINER
OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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):
OREN@I-P.CO.IL
RECHES0@012.NET.IL
MAIL@I-P.CO.IL
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZOHAR BEERI
Appeal2014-002142
Application 12/729,434
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, 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 decision rejecting claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer program product that comprises a non transient
computer readable medium that stores instructions for:
monitoring an offer to enter a transaction, wherein the
offer is being distributed over a social networking community
by a referring entity; wherein members of the social networking
community interact through a network;
Appeal2014-002142
Application 12/729,434
detecting a completion of the transaction;
compensating the referring entity, wherein the referring
entity differs from an initiator of the offer; and
detecting a contribution that is not directly attributed to
the completion of the transaction; and compensating the
contributing entity, the contributing entity differs from the
referring entity and is not directly associated with the
transaction.
Appellant appeals the following rejection:
1. Claims 1-21under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Morgenstern
(US 2005/0234781 Al, pub. Oct. 20, 2005).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Morgenstern
does not disclose compensating the referring entity and compensating the
contributing entity?
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that Morgenstern does not disclose
compensating both a referring entity and a contributing entity. We agree.
The Examiner relies on paragraph 86 of Morgenstern for teaching this
subject matter. We find that Morgenstern discloses that either the referring
entity or the contributing entity is compensated. In this regard, paragraph 86
discloses rewarding the contributing entity, Friendster, without the rewards
mechanism being delivered to the associated user or referring entity. As
such, the Examiner has not directed us to a teaching in Morgenstern of
rewarding both the associated user and Friendster.
2
Appeal2014-002142
Application 12/729,434
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1 and claims 2-10 dependent therefrom. We will also not sustain
this rejection as it is directed to claim 20 and claim 21 dependent therefrom
for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to the rejection of claim 1.
We will also not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 11 and
claims 12-19 dependent therefrom because the Examiner has not established
that the Morgenstern system is capable of rewarding the referring entity and
the contributing entity.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
3