Ex Parte Bhosle et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 26, 201613411113 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/411,113 03/02/2012 71247 7590 08/30/2016 Client 170101 c/o THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP 400 INTERSTATE NORTH PARKWAY SE SUITE 1500 ATLANTA, GA 30339 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR AmitBhosle 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. 170107-1180 8054 EXAMINER ALLADIN, AMBREEN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3693 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2016 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): kristen.layton@tkhr.com ozzie. liggins@tkhr.com uspatents@tkhr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AMIT BHOSLE, ANMAR CHINOY, MICHAEL DONIKIAN, and ASHISH AGRAWAL Appeal2014-007816 1 Application 13/411,1132 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed April 10, 2014) and Reply Br. ("Reply Br.," filed July 3, 2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 6, 2014), and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed September 4, 2013). 2 Appellants identify Amazon Technologies, Inc., as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal2014-007816 Application 13/411,113 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention "relates to distributing charges to one or more accounts based on user-created business rules for transactions that occur on a master account." (Spec. ,-r 7). Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program executable in a computing device, the program compnsmg: [a] code that determines a master account listed in a charge request received from a transaction client, wherein the master account is associated with a plurality of payment instruments, wherein the plurality of payment instruments are associated with a plurality of individuals, and wherein the master account is shared among the individuals; [b] code that determines a charge distribution allocation associated with a plurality of linked accounts based on an allocation rule, the linked accounts being associated with the master account; [ c] code that determines an available credit amount associated with the linked accounts; [ d] code that causes at least a portion of the amount specified in the charge request to be charged to a plurality of the linked accounts; and [ e] wherein the allocation rule determines the charge distribution allocation based at least in part on a one of the linked accounts having a greatest amount of offered reward points with respect to others of the linked accounts. 2 Appeal2014-007816 Application 13/411,113 REJECTION3 Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Khalid (US 200710164098 Al, pub. July 19, 2007) and Clementz (US 2006/0064378 Al, pub. Mar. 23, 2006). ANALYSIS Independent claims 1 and dependent claims 2 and 3 We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument (see Appeal Br. 6-9; see also Reply Br. 4--8) that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the combination of Khalid and Clementz fails to disclose or suggest limitations [a] and [ e] of independent claim 1 which recite: [a] code that determines a master account listed in a charge request received from a transaction client, wherein the master account is associated with a plurality of payment instruments, wherein the plurality of payment instruments are associated with a plurality of individuals, and wherein the master account is shared among the individuals; and [ e] wherein the allocation rule determines the charge distribution allocation based at least in part on a one of the linked accounts having a greatest amount of offered reward points with respect to others of the linked accounts. (Appeal Br. 16; Claims App'x.). Instead, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Khalid and Clementz renders obvious the argued limitations of independent claim 1 (see Ans. 17-25 (citing Khalid i-fi-1 5-14, 20, 33--44, 49)). 3 Appellants and Examiner agree that claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Khalid and Clementz (Appeal Br. 14; cf Ans. 27). 3 Appeal2014-007816 Application 13/411,113 In this regard, Khalid is directed to a credit card "associated with a master account which is just like a regular account with added features backed by a reconfigurable policy table and a method to modify or split transaction and execute them as a 2nd level of transaction on child account associated with the master account" (Khalid i-f 5). Khalid discloses that its system provides "the benefit of having multiple accounts with higher credit limits and different benefits associated with those accounts" (id. i-f 2; see also id. i-f 44). Khalid also discloses that its system includes a "[r]econfigurable policy table [which] contains rules that dictate how operations can be carried out on master or child account" (id. i-f 5). Khalid describes that customers are able to set rules in the configuration table to meet their needs (id. i-f 8). For example, Khalid discloses [ u ]ser can specify some rule or policy as simple as like use Card Cl to do grocery, C2 for traveling purposes and C3 for any larger bill above $300. User can also specify how amount can be split across multiple accounts. Say if charge on Master account is $500+ split the amount between card Cl and C2 by 40% and 60%. Any combinations can be used. Again this policy can be as simple as use card Cl then card C2 then Card C3 etc. Individual can set policy that meets their own spending habits and benefit offered by different cards. (Id. i-f 12; see also id. i-fi-133-39). Khalid further discloses if the card is issued against master account, transaction processor does more processing. It look[ s ]up configuration policy table to retrieve rules that match current transaction attributes like merchant, transaction amount, time of transaction etc. The processor then modifies the transaction or split[ s] the transaction over accounts based on the information in the information table. (Id. i-f 20; see also id. i-fi-140-41). We also note that Clementz is directed to a system for maintaining linked accounts (Clementz i-f 4). More particularly, Clementz discloses "a 4 Appeal2014-007816 Application 13/411,113 master account is maintained for a master account holder, and one or more subaccounts linked to the master account are maintained for one or more sub-account holders. The sub-accounts are funded using at least one funding source of the master account" (id.). Clementz discloses that its system enables sharing funding sources between "family members, business partners, [and] multi-businesses" (id. i-f 26). Appellants argue that the "'master account' in Khalid is directed to an individual user's personal account" and "Khalid does not appear to discuss 'a plurality of payment instruments associated with a plurality of individuals,' nor does Khalid appear to discuss the 'master account [being] shared among the individuals"' (Appeal Br. 6). However, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Khalid and Clementz discloses the argued features (see Ans. 17-20). In this regard, Khalid discloses that its system allows multiple child accounts to be associated with a master account and provides "[i]f an account needs to be attached to the master account, the table is updated with all the information so that transaction processor can make any transaction on the child account using the information in the table" (Khalid i-f 9). We also note that Khalid discloses that its system can configure rules to allow other individuals, e.g., children, to use a joint account (id. i-fi-1 45--48). Moreover, as the Examiner points out, the rejection of independent claim 1 is not based solely on Khalid, but rather on the combined teachings of Khalid and Clementz (see Ans. 18). Here, we note that Clementz discloses that its master account holder can share funds between other account holders such as "family members, business partners, [and] multi-businesses" (Clementz i-fi-125-26). Thus, Appellants' argument is not persuasive to show error. 5 Appeal2014-007816 Application 13/411,113 Appellants also argue that the combination of Khalid and Clementz fails to disclose or suggest argued limitation [ e] because "Khalid limits its discussion to a 'benefit' in the abstract, and does not appear to discuss 'offered reward points' at all (Appeal Br. 7-8; see also Reply Br. 4--7). However, we agree with the Examiner that Khalid discloses the argued feature (see Ans. 23-25). In this regard, we note that Khalid discloses that its system provides "the benefit of having multiple accounts with higher credit limits and different benefits associated with those accounts" (Khalid i-f 2; see also id. i-f 44). We also note that Khalid describes "rewards in terms of interest rate/money back/points mileage etc." (id. i-f 42). Thus, Appellants' argument is not persuasive to show error. Appellants further argue that the combination of Khalid and Clementz fails to disclose or suggest limitation [ e], of independent claim 1, because Khalid "does not appear to discuss this "divert[ing] according to 'benefits' at all" (Reply Br. 6). More particularly, Appellants argue that "Khalid appears to merely recite that a 'transaction' can be diverted according to 'some policy,' and does not appear to discuss this 'policy' as being 'to derive the benefits offered by different cards"' (id.). We cannot agree. Instead, we find Khalid discloses determining a distribution based on card benefits (see Khalid i-fi-124--42). In this regard, Khalid discloses using one particular card when renting a car because "Cl card offer[ s] car insurance when a car is rented using the card" (id. i-fi-129, 37). Khalid provides additional examples of rules/policies for using one particular card over another card when charging airplane tickets (id. i-f 36), Disney expenses (id. i-f 38), or other merchandise (id. i-f 31 ). Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive to show error. 6 Appeal2014-007816 Application 13/411,113 Appellants last argue that "Khalid merely mentions a 'great reward program'" and "[t]he mere mentioning of a 'great reward program' does not rise to the level of showing or suggesting 'a greatest amount of offered reward points with respect to others of the linked accounts"' (Appeal Br. 7-9; see also Reply Br. 4--8). However, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Khalid and Clementz renders obvious the argued limitation (see Ans. 20-25). "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007); see also Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. Info USA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("while an analysis of obviousness always depends on evidence ... it also may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference"). Here, Khalid discloses that an "[i]ndividual can set policy that meets their own spending habits and benefit offered by different cards" (Khalid i-f 12). Khalid also describes "rewards in terms of interest rate/money back/points mileage etc." (id. i-f 42) and discusses various rules/policies for allocating charges based on card benefits (see id. i-fi-124--42). Although Khalid does not provide any explicit examples about "determin[ing] the charge distribution allocation based ... on a one of the linked accounts having a greatest amount of offered reward points with respect to others of the linked accounts," as recited by limitation [ e] of independent claim 1, Khalid does disclose determining a charge distribution based on rewards or others benefits, e.g., using a particular card that offers car insurance (Khalid i-f 29) versus another card that offers travels insurance (id. i-f 30), or discounts on merchandise (id. i-f 31 ). Given these teachings, one of ordinary skill in 7 Appeal2014-007816 Application 13/411,113 the art would appreciate "determin[ing] the charge distribution allocation based ... on a one of the linked accounts having a greatest amount of offered reward points with respect to others of the linked accounts," as recited by limitation [ e], to be obvious in light of Khalid's disclosure regarding its reconfigurable policy table which enables an "[i]ndividual [to] set [a] policy that meets their own spending habits and benefit offered by different cards" (id. i-f 12; see also id., i-fi-1 5, 20). In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2 and 3, which are not argued separately except based on their dependence from independent claim 4 (see App. Br. 9, 14). Independent claim 4 and dependent claims 5-13 Appellants' arguments with respect to independent claim 4 (see App. Br. 9-12; see also Reply Br. 8) are substantially identical to Appellants' arguments with respect to claim 1, and are unpersuasive for the same reasons. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to independent claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5- 13, which are not argued separately except based on their dependence from independent claim 4 (see App. Br. 12, 14). Independent claim 14 and dependent claims 15-21 We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the 8 Appeal2014-007816 Application 13/411,113 combination of Khalid and Clementz fails to disclose or suggest "wherein the applicable one of the allocation rules determines the charge distribution allocation proportional to the available credit amount associated with the linked accounts" (see Appeal Br. 12-14; see also Reply Br. 8-10). The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper and cites paragraphs 5-12, 14, 20, 33--41, 48, 49 of Khalid as disclosing the argued limitation (see Ans. 25-27; see also Final Act. 7-9). More particularly, the Examiner finds "Khalid directly discloses that a rule can exist that allows a transaction to be split over multiple accounts if a transaction does not fit on a particular card" (Ans. 26 (citing Khalid i-f 8)), and concludes that "[t]his would be a charge distribution allocation that is proportionate to available credit associated with a linked account" (id. at 26-27). The Examiner also points out that "charges can be split on the basis of percentages between various cards (id. at 27 (citing Khalid i-f 12). We have reviewed the cited portions of Khalid, on which the Examiner relies, and agree with Appellants that nothing in the portions of Khalid relied on by the Examiner discloses or suggests the argued limitation (see Appeal Br. 12-14; see also Reply Br. 8-10). Although we agree with the Examiner that Khalid discloses distributing the cost of transactions across multiple accounts if a transaction does not fit on one card (see Khalid i-f 8) and by percentage of a charge amount (see Khalid i-f 12), we cannot agree with the Examiner that Khalid discloses or suggests "determin[ing] the charge distribution allocation proportional to the available credit amount associated with the linked accounts," as recited by independent claim 14. Instead, we agree with Appellants that the cited paragraphs of Khalid fail to 9 Appeal2014-007816 Application 13/411,113 disclose or suggest "that these 'percentages' are 'proportional to the available credit amount associated with the linked accounts'" (Reply Br. 9). We appreciate that Khalid discloses distributing a charge proportionally across multiple child cards, however, we fail to see, and the Examiner does not adequately explain, how "allow[ing] a transaction to be split over multiple accounts if a transaction does not fit on a particular card" and/or "split[ ting] on the basis of percentages between various cards" (Ans. 26-27) discloses or suggests a distribution "proportional to the available credit amount associated with the linked accounts," as required by independent claim 14. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis."). We note the Examiner does not rely on Clementz to cure this deficiency. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 15-21, which depend therefrom. 10 Appeal2014-007816 Application 13/411,113 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 14--21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. 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-IN-PART 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation