Ex Parte Bissonette et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2016

09922106 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016)

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.
09/922,106 08/06/2001 Richard Bissonette 1330.1005C 8697
21171 7590 12/29/2016
STA AS fr HAT SFY T T P
EXAMINER
SUITE 700 DASS, HARISH T
1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2016 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):
ptomail @ s-n-h.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD BISSONETTE, CHRISTOPHER ROYAL CORRIE,
and WILLIAM LEE WINGATE
Appeal 2012-011575
Application 09/922,1061
Technology Center 3600
Before, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI,
and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
non-final rejection of claims 72, 73, and 77—79. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants identify CGI Technologies and Solutions INC. as the real party
in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-011575
Application 09/922,106
Claim 72 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter
on appeal.
72. A system for controlling financial transactions of an
organization, comprising:
a financial management system including a computer having a storage
and providing control, by defining a management system limit, and
accounting for financial transactions of multiple users within the
organization; and
a money transaction card system including a computer having a
storage, associated with the financial management system and
providing control, by controlling transactions responsive to a card
system limit and the management system limit where the card system
limit is a limit on a money transaction card set by the money
transaction card system issuing the card where the card system limit
and the management system limit are independently enforced
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:2
Langhans 5,621,201 Apr. 15, 1997
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 72, 73, and 77—79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Langhans.
2 The Examiner withdraws the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
(Answer 4).
2
Appeal 2012-011575
Application 09/922,106
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102 REJECTION
Each of independent claims 72, 78 and 79 require in one form or
another:
a money transaction card system including a
computer having a storage, associated with the
financial management system and providing
control, by controlling transactions responsive to a
card system limit and the management system limit
where the card system limit is a limit on a money
transaction card set by the money transaction card
system issuing the card where the card system limit
and the management system limit are
independently enforced.
Appellants argue,
In contrast to the claimed invention where" ... the
card system limit and the management system
limit are independently enforced", authorization
according to Langhans is performed entirely by a
credit card company, for example, in this case,
Visa (assignee of Langhans). When a user initiates
a purchase, the card number is transmitted to a
remote computer controlled by Visa who is the
card issuer and applies an appropriate test based on
the BIN number to authorize the purchase. Thus,
Langhans enforces limits entirely controlled by the
credit card issuing company based on a BIN
number. (See Langhans, column 2, lines 29-39,
column 2, line 59- column 3, line 16, column 11,
lines 24-31, column 15, lines 24-31, column 12,
3
Appeal 2012-011575
Application 09/922,106
line 62- column 13, line 2) (emphasis omitted).
(Appeal Br. 5).
The Examiner however found,
Langhans discloses an automated purchasing
control system (Abstract; Figure 8; Col. 1 lines 11-
37) where the charges are controlled by the
corporation (Figure 8 # 70; Col. 1 lines 25-37, Col.
2 lines 29-39, Col. 3 line 62 through Col. 4 line 2,
lines 50-65) and the VISANET (Figure 8 # 94,
#96, #106; Col. 2 lines 29-39, Col. 5 lines 3-9, Col.
6 lines 10-44, Col. 8 line 11, and lines 44-45
"company credit line" is anticipated to be
controlled by the VISA network, where the VISA
network inherently disapproves any
transaction/charge which causes the company total
charges exceed the VISA credit line).
(Answer 6).
The Examiner further found that Fanghans discloses the financial
management system at “(abstract; col. 3, line 62 - col. 4, line 24; col. 2, lines
30-39; Figs. 2 and 8)” and finds that the money transaction card system is
disclosed by Fanghans at “(col. 3, line 62 - col. 4, line 2, col. 4, lines 50—65;
Figs. 5 and 6)”. (Final Act. 3-4).
Our review of the sections cited by the Examiner reveals that
Fanghans fails to disclose Appellants’ plural systems and associated
methodology recited in the claims. In particular, we disagree with the
Examiner (as best that can be discerned by the Examiner’s explanation on
page 6 of the Answer), that the VISANET system is the equivalent of the
money transaction card system which must, according to the claims, set the
4
Appeal 2012-011575
Application 09/922,106
card system limit and issue the card. The Examiner seems to have mapped
the money transaction card system to the VISANET System (Final Action,
6; col. 2, lines 30-39). But, according to Langhans, it is the Rocky
Mountain Bank Card System, and not VISANET, which issues the card. See
column 1, lines 25-49. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of the
independent claims before us on appeal as anticipated by Langhans. A claim
is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Because claims 73 and 77 depend form claim 72 and we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 72, claims 73 and 77 likewise are not
sustained.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 72, 73, and
77-79 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 72, 73, and 77—79 is
reversed.
REVERSED.
5