Ex Parte Hamilton et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 201612330545 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/330,545 12/09/2008 26681 7590 09/21/2016 Driggs, Hogg, Daugherty & Del Zoppo Co,, LP,A, 38500 CHARDON ROAD DEPT. IEN WILLOUGHBY HILLS, OH 44094 Rick A. Hamilton II 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. END920080346US l_IENl 06604 1052 EXAMINER CRAWLEY, TALIAF ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3687 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2016 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): usptocommunications@driggslaw.com carole@driggslaw.com mwheeler@driggslaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICK A. HAMIL TON II, JAMES R. KOZLOSKI, BRIAN M. O'CONNELL, CLIFFORD A. PICKOVER, and KEITH R. WALKER Appeal2014--002453 Application 12/330,545 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. PETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Rick A. Hamilton II, James R. Kozloski, Brian M. O'Connell, Clifford A. Pickover, and Keith R. Walker (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1-5, 8-15, and 17-20, the only 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed April 30, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed December 6, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed October 11, 2013), and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed November 5, 2012). Appeal2014-002453 Application 12/330,545 claims pending in the application on appeal. 2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellants invented a way of linking dual accounts for composite monetary and carbon credit value consideration in a transaction. Specification para. 1. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 1. A method for linking and utilizing monetary and carbon credit accounts in consideration of a transaction, comprising: [1] a programmable arbitrating device and providing a transaction interface to a buyer that links a monetary account of the buyer to a carbon credit account of the buyer; [2] the arbitrating device automatically executing a purchase of an item offered for sale to the buyer by a seller at a composite price that has a monetary portion and a carbon credit portion, in response to an input of the buyer to the arbitrating device transaction interface as a function of a monetary-carbon exchange rate, by: [3] comparing the monetary-carbon exchange rate to a rate threshold; 2 The claims as entered are those in an amendment filed January 2, 2013, after the Final Action. This amendment was entered according to an Advisory Action mailed January 16, 2103. 2 Appeal2014-002453 Application 12/330,545 [ 4] in response to the monetary-carbon exchange rate meeting the compared rate threshold, and charging a first monetary payment from the buyer's monetary account, charging a first carbon credit payment from the buyer's carbon credit account and converting a first amount of a balance of a selected one of the monetary and carbon credit account to generate a first converted monetary/ carbon credit payment as a function of the monetary-carbon exchange rate, so that a percentage of a monetary payment amount relative to a carbon credit payment amount in a total of the first monetary payment, the first carbon credit payment and the first converted monetary/ carbon credit payment satisfies a specified carbon credit/monetary proportion that is associated with the rate threshold; [5] in response to the monetary-carbon exchange rate not meeting the compared rate threshold, charging a second monetary payment from the buyer's monetary account that is different from the first monetary payment, and 3 Appeal2014-002453 Application 12/330,545 charging a second carbon credit payment from the buyer's carbon credit account that is different from the first carbon credit payment. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Pollack US 2008/0249965 Al Vaswani US 2010/0228601 Al Oct. 9, 2008 Sept. 9, 2010 Claims 1-5, 9-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pollack and Vaswani. 3 ISSUES The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether the prior art describes varying the relative amounts of carbon credits and monetary portions in a composite price to automatically produce different proportions as a function of an exchange rate. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 3 A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), section 14 were withdrawn in an Advisory Action mailed January 16, 2013. 4 Appeal2014-002453 Application 12/330,545 Facts Related to the Prior Art Pollack 01.Pollack is directed to automatically calculating a custom offset fee that purchasers may voluntarily pay to offset the negative environmental impacts of the fuel they purchase, at the time and point of sale. Pollack para. 16. 02. The offset payment can be collected in one of two ways: either as a separate line item in the fuel purchase transaction, or as an embedded portion of the fuel product price. Pollack para. 18. 03.Pollack describes the offset payment being calculated in real time based upon specific temporal, spatial, or climatic factors that may affect the pollution characteristics of the fuel being purchased. Pollack para. 20. 04.Pollack may offer the user a second choice of making an offset payment by adding an offset surcharge to the fuel product's price, or by offering a version of the fuel product with the offset surcharge included in the price. In various implementations, Pollack accepts payment via cash, credit card or pre-paid environmental offset points. Pollack para. 27. 05.Pollack describes the custom offset engine calculating a custom offset payment or debit in real time based on actual usage data. Pollack para. 34--35. 5 Appeal2014-002453 Application 12/330,545 Vaswani 06. Vaswani is directed to electrical energy consumption; information relating to electrical energy usage for a given account is associated with a time segment that corresponds to a period when the electrical energy was received from an electrical energy distribution system. V aswani para. 5. 07. Vaswani describes electrical energy generation carbon impact information indicating carbon released to generate the electrical energy during the corresponding time segment. A carbon credit is calculated according to the retrieved electrical energy generation carbon impact information, and the retrieved electrical energy usage information associated with the time segment. The calculated carbon credit is then used to update a display of carbon credit related information, such as account balance, rate of carbon credit usage, currently applicable "cost" for carbon credit usage, or the like. Notifications can be provided to the consumer if any of this information crosses a threshold value. Id. 08.Vaswani describes an example in which a customer of utility E has a monthly carbon credit allotment of 32,000 credits, which are credited to the customer's account at utility E. Typical usage is below the monthly allotment by, on average, 5,000 credits. However, some months the monthly allotment is exceeded by 3,000 or 4,000 credits. The customer typically sells excess credits from a brokerage account held with a financial institution G. To facilitate selling, the customer puts in place carbon credit balance 6 Appeal2014-002453 Application 12/330,545 transfer rules with utility E which specify: if the carbon credit account balance at the utility reaches 50,000 credits or more, credits in excess of 40,000 credits are to be transferred to the customer's brokerage account with financial institution G. Vaswani para. 88. ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that "no teachings are provided as to varying the relative amounts of carbon credits and monetary portions in a composite price to automatically produce different proportions as a function of an exchange rate as specifically claimed." Reply Br. 2. The Examiner finds this would be obvious to try. Ans. 3--4. The Examiner provides no analytic framework for why this would be obvious to try other than to find that the references describe using rules to test thresholds generally. The recited implementation of testing based on mix proportions instead of monetary or credit amounts as described in the references is far too detailed for one of ordinary skill to sense the implementation as a case to try without more description in the direction of the recited implementation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1-5, 9-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pollack and Vaswani is improper. 7 Appeal2014-002453 Application 12/330,545 uECISION The rejection of claims 1-5, 8-15, and 17-20 is reversed. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation