Ex Parte Geisel et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 28, 2007

09795670 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 28, 2007)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BRIAN R. GEISEL, WILLIAM RANDLETT,
AMAR VERMA, JEFF CHINANDER,
KS SUBRAMANIAN, and RANJEE GANGADHAR
____________

Appeal 2007-3342
Application 09/795,670
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: November 28, 2007
____________

Before ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, JEAN R. HOMERE,
and JOHN A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1 through 20, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b), and we heard the
appeal on November 8, 2007.
Appellants' invention relates generally to a system and method for
processing commercial paper. (See generally Spec. paragraph [0002].)
Appeal 2007-3342
Application 09/795,670

2
Claim 6 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
6. A method for item processing of commercial paper comprising the
steps of:

collecting a transaction data record representative of a commercial
transaction item;

transforming said transaction data record into a unified data record
representative of a commercial transaction item, said unified data record
including an image portion and an alphanumeric portion;

storing said unified data record in a memory to form a data store
having a plurality of unified data records;

interrogating said data store to determine a state indicator for each of
said plurality of unified data records wherein said state indicator is selected
from the group including a free state wherein said unified data record
includes said image portion but not said alphanumeric portion, a missing
state wherein said unified data record includes said alphanumeric portion but
not said image portion, and a complete state wherein said unified data record
includes said image portion and said alphanumeric portion;

generating a probable match recommendation between an unmatched
item and a free item in said data store based on said state indicators;

arranging said plurality of unified data records into a structured
hierarchy in accordance to a set of user-defined business rules; and

reconciling said plurality of unified data records in said structured
hierarchy.

The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Stolfo US 5,668,897 Sep. 16, 1997
Jamali US 6,243,502 B1 Jun. 05, 2001

Appeal 2007-3342
Application 09/795,670

3
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stolfo in view of Jamali.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed November 27, 2006) and
to Appellants' Brief (filed October 24, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed
January 29, 2007) for the respective arguments.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 through 20.

OPINION
For claim 1, Appellants contend (Br. 12) that Stolfo fails to teach or
suggest a transformation algorithm for transforming a transaction data record
into a unified data record which represents a commercial transaction item,
with the unified data record including an image portion and an alphanumeric
portion. In addition, Appellants contend (Br. 13) that Stolfo fails to disclose
a verification algorithm for verifying the alphanumeric portion against the
image portion of the unified data record. The Examiner (Ans. 4-5) states
that "Examiner interprets that the Rotational algorithms [of Stolfo disclosed
at column 30, lines 23-25 and 31-35] consists of data collection algorithm,
transformation algorithm, transmission algoirthm and verification
algorithm." Further, the Examiner specifies (Ans. 5) that Stolfo teaches the
claimed transformation algorithm by disclosing that the image is normalized
to a frontal orientation. The first issue, therefore, is whether Stolfo discloses
the claimed transformation and verification algorithms recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2007-3342
Application 09/795,670

4
Stolfo discloses (col. 30, ll. 17-25) that a detailed representation of an
individual can be generated by using rotational algorithms to normalize the
image to a frontal limitation. Claim 1, on the other hand, recites that a
transformation algorithm transforms "said transaction data record into a
unified data record representative of a commercial transaction item," and a
verification algorithm has an interface for "visually reviewing said image
portion of said unified data record." Thus, the claim requires transformation
of a data record representing a commercial transaction, whereas Stolfo
discloses transforming an image of an individual. Consequently, we find
that the portion of Stolfo relied upon by the Examiner fails to teach or
suggest the transformation algorithm recited in claim 1, and we find no
disclosure elsewhere in Stolfo of the claimed transformation algorithm.
Also, since Stolfo fails to disclose transforming a transaction data record
into a unified data record, Stolfo further fails to disclose a verification
algorithm for verifying the alphanumeric portion of the unified data record
against the image portion.
Appellants further contend (Br. 13-14) that Stolfo fails to disclose the
claimed configuration module "interfaced between the image capture
module and the data collection mechanism." In addition, Appellants contend
(Br. 14) that Stolfo fails to disclose the claimed specifics of the
configuration module, i.e., a definitional algorithm which defines an
environment, a transformation format between the environment and the
unified data record, and a routing algorithm defining a routing path of the
unified data record through the system. The Examiner asserts (Ans. 5-6)
that Stolfo's determining the background code, deleting the background from
the check, and storing only the written information satisfy the claimed
Appeal 2007-3342
Application 09/795,670

5
configuration module including a definitional algorithm. Further, the
Examiner asserts (Ans. 6) that the claimed transformation format and routing
algorithm are disclosed by Stolfo's delivery of the check to the depositor's
bank for verification and processing. The issue, therefore, is whether Stolfo
discloses a configuration module interfaced between the image capture
module and the data collection mechanism and having a definitional
algorithm to define an environment for the data collection mechanism, a
transformation format between the environment and the unified data record,
and a routing algorithm defining a routing path of the unified data record
through the system.
Assuming, arguendo, that the background of the check constitutes the
claimed environment, it is unclear to us how deleting the background of the
check satisfies defining an environment for the data collection mechanism.
Further, it is unclear how delivering a check to the depositor's bank satisfies
the claimed transformation format between the background of the check (the
environment) and the unified data record (which we found lacking, supra,
from Stolfo). Also, delivering a check to the depositor's bank at best defines
a routing path of the commercial transaction item, but not of the unified data
record. Accordingly, Stolfo fails to disclose the claimed configuration
module including a definitional algorithm, transformation format, and
routing algorithm.
Appellants contend (Br. 15-16) that Stolfo fails to disclose the
claimed compiling algorithm for arranging the unified data records into a
structured hierarchy according to a set of user-defined business rules.
Appellants further contend (Br. 16-17) that Stolfo fails to disclose the
claimed reconciliation algorithm for reconciling the unified data records and
Appeal 2007-3342
Application 09/795,670

6
(Br. 18-20) that Stolfo fails to disclose the claimed probable match
resolution algorithm. The Examiner asserts (Ans. 6) that Stolfo teaches the
claimed compiling algorithm "as the rule-based system will follow the
production system model consisting of a set of rules and a database of facts."
Also, the Examiner asserts (Ans. 6) that Stolfo's processor analyzing a part
of the image and determining whether it is part of the foreground or the
background constitutes the claimed reconciliation algorithm. The Examiner
asserts (Ans. 6-7) that Stolfo discloses the claimed probable match
resolution algorithm, but not comparing the alphanumeric portion separately.
The Examiner relies upon Jamali as teaching comparing the image portion
and the alphanumeric portion separately. The issues are whether Stolfo
teaches compiling, reconciliation, and probable match algorithms, as recited
in claim 1, and whether Jamali remedies any deficiency in Stolfo regarding
the probable match resolution algorithm.
As to the compiling algorithm, since Stolfo fails to disclose creating
unified data records, Stolfo likewise fails to disclose arranging the unified
data records into a structured hierarchy according to user-defined business
rules. In addition, the rules in Stolfo referenced by the Examiner (i.e., col.
22, ll. 29-32 and 35-37) are for determining if any conflicts exist such as
extra or missing data. Stolfo's rules are not user-defined business rules for
forming a structured hierarchy of data records. Further, since Stolfo fails to
disclose unified data records, Stolfo fails to disclose a reconciliation
algorithm for reconciling unified data records. As to the probable match
algorithm, the portion of Stolfo relied upon by the Examiner (col. 16, ll. 34-
54), refers to checking a database for the code of the check's background
and, upon failing to find a match, creating a new code and adding the
Appeal 2007-3342
Application 09/795,670

7
background to the database. Claim 1, on the other hand, recites
recommending a probable match. Thus, Stolfo fails to disclose the claimed
algorithms of the item balancing module. We note that Jamali fails to cure
the deficiencies of Stolfo. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 1 or its dependents, claims 2 through 5, 19, and 20.
Regarding independent claim 6, Appellants contend (Br. 24-29) that
Stolfo fails to disclose the claimed steps of transforming the transaction data
record into a unified data record, generating a probable match
recommendation, arranging the unified data records into a structured
hierarchy according to user-defined business rules, and reconciling the
unified data records. As we have addressed each of these limitations with
regard to the corresponding algorithms recited in claim 1 and have found
each lacking from Stolfo and Jamali, we cannot sustain the obviousness
rejection of 6 and its dependents, claims 7 through 10.
For claim independent claim 11, Appellants contend (Br. 33-38) that
Stolfo fails to disclose a record creation module for converting a transaction
data record into plural unified data records, first unified data records
comprising at least one image portion, second unified data records
comprising at least one alphanumeric portion, a balancing module for
reconciling the image portion and the alphanumeric portion of the unified
records according to user-defined rules, or a probable match module for
generating a highest probability match between the first and second set of
unified data records. We found supra that the combination of Stolfo and
Jamali lacks a conversion of a transaction data record into a unified data
record. Similarly, we found no disclosure of reconciling the image and
alphanumeric portions of unified data records. Likewise, we found no
Appeal 2007-3342
Application 09/795,670

8
recommendation of a probable match, and, therefore, find no probable match
module for generating a highest probability match. Consequently, we
cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 11 or its dependents,
claims 12 through 18.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P. O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303