Ex Parte Dinkin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 5, 2013

12183431 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GARY T. DINKIN and LINDA B. DINKIN
____________________

Appeal 2011-010948
Application 12/183,431
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before, JOSEPH A FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-010948
Application 12/183,431

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-23.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The rejected claims are directed to a method for peer-to-peer third
party distribution of gift cards and peer-to-peer transaction routing of related
information, as well as an associated system and computer readable medium.
Claims 1, 12, and 23 are the only independent claims.
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below with numbering added in square brackets,
is indicative of the claims on appeal.
1. A method for peer-to-peer third party
distribution of gift cards and peer-to-peer
transaction routing therefor, the method
comprising:
[1] providing a peer-to-peer gift card
transaction router implemented using a computing
platform and a peer-to-peer gift card transaction
database that are configurable to facilitate peer-to-
peer transaction processing for gift cards issued by
a gift card provider and distributed by a third party
seller where the gift card provider and the third
party seller negotiate terms of gift card distribution
directly with each other and enter an agreement
regarding distribution of and transaction

1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 31,
2008), Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed March 30, 2011), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed June 20, 2011), as well as the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed May 17, 2011).

Appeal 2011-010948
Application 12/183,431

3
processing for gift cards issued by the gift card
provider and distributed by the third party seller;
[2] creating a record in the database
corresponding to the agreement between the third
party seller and the gift card provider;
in response to a gift card transaction by the
third party seller for a gift card issued by the gift
card provider, at the peer-to-peer gift card
transaction router:
[3] receiving a gift card transaction message
from the third party seller;
[4] accessing the database using information
in the gift card transaction message and locating
the record corresponding to the agreement between
the third party seller and the gift card provider; and
[5] using information in the record,
communicating notification of the gift card
transaction to the gift card provider, wherein the
gift card provider, the gift card seller, and an
operator of the gift card transaction router and the
database comprise separate entities.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Fertig (US 6,050,493, iss. Apr. 18, 2000).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as anticipated by Fertig.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not identify with
specificity where Fertig teaches multiple limitations of claim 1 (App. Br. 10-
Appeal 2011-010948
Application 12/183,431

4
18, Reply Br. 1-2). For example, with respect to all of the limitations in
section [1] of claim 1, the Examiner references only the Abstract of Fertig
and Figures 1 and 2 (Ans. 4-5, 11-12). The Abstract is reproduced below in
its entirety.
A pre-paid card for sending a gift such as
flowers is sized to fit inside a wallet, having a front
face with photographs or drawings with a plurality
of pre-selected gift items and back face with
warranty and instructional information, as well as a
telephone access number and a PIN number which
is unique to the card. A plurality of pre-selected
items depicted on the front face of the card will
each have a corresponding identifier number or
code, so that the card user can easily select a gift
item to be ordered.
Figures 1 and 2 of Fertig show the front and back of a pre-paid gift,
respectively. Thus, we find that the Examiner has not established that Fertig
teaches the limitation of providing a peer-to-peer transaction router using a
computer platform and a peer-to-peer gift card transaction database, as
required by claim 1. The Examiner then references Figures 1 and 2 as well
as from column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 67 of Fertig, which are virtually
the entire disclosure of Fertig, to teach the limitations in sections [2], [3],
and [5] of claim 1 (id.). The Examiner also references Figures 1 and 2 and
from column 1, line 1 to column 3, line 10 of Fertig to teach the limitations
in section [4] of claim 1 (id.). But these sections merely discuss various
types of gifts which can be obtained using the card by calling an operator to
identify a selected gift without disclosure of any third party agreement being
in place and/or the operation of a peer-to-peer gift card transaction database.
Thus, the Examiner has not shown where any of the claimed creating a
record in a database corresponding to an agreement, receiving a gift-card
Appeal 2011-010948
Application 12/183,431

5
transaction message, accessing a database using information from this
message, or communicating notification of a gift-card transaction, is taught
by Fertig. Rather, these sections of Fertig discuss redemption of a pre-paid
gift card, without reference to the specific claim limitations. We therefore
find that the Examiner has not established with specificity where Fertig
teaches any of these limitations, and we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1.
With respect to independent claims 12 and 23, the Examiner rejects
these claims for the same reasons as independent claim 1 (Ans. 7), and
Appellants argue these claims are allowable for the same reasons as claim 1.
Because independent claims 12 and 23 fundamentally use the same language
as claim 1 discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 12 and 23.
The remaining claims depend from independent claims 1 and 12.
Therefore, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-11 and
13-22.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-23 is REVERSED.
REVERSED

mls