Ex Parte Hirka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

12982467 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/982,467 12/30/2010
131313 7590 03/01/2016
JPMorgan Chase I Goodwin Procter
901 New York A venue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey L. Hirka
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.
147004.020066 8415
EXAMINER
BARTLEY, KENNETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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):
patentdc@goodwinprocter.com
fmckeon@goodwinprocter.com
aalpha-kpetewama@goodwinprocter.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY L. HIRKA, DEBRA C. FELLNER, and
STEVEN FOX, LEE KNACKSTEDT
Appeal2014-000887
Application 12/982,4671
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
final rejection of claims 11-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-000887
Application 12/982,467
Claim 11 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
11. A method for providing a consumer with an option
to use a payment card for accessing one of multiple available
accounts, the method comprising:
issuing a payment card encoded with alias master
account information in the form of a single account, the
encoded alias master account information being linked to, but
does not contain actual account identifier of, each of a
plurality of financial accounts, wherein the plurality of
financial accounts include at least one credit account and at
least one debit account;
implementing computer processmg components to
perform steps including:
rece1vmg data transmitted from a point-of-sale
processor or an A TM processor after reading of the encoded
alias master account information on the payment card, the
data further comprising transaction data associated with an
attempted transaction and selection data indicating a selection
of an account type, and the data being routed over a particular
network determined based on the selection data;
analyzing the data by at least one processor, the account
type including one of a credit account and a debit account,
and the transaction data including at least a transaction
amount; and
processing, by at least one processor, the transaction in
accordance with the selection data by accessing an account
based on the encoded alias master account information read
from the payment card corresponding to the selected account
type and debiting the accessed account by the transaction
amount.
2
Appeal2014-000887
Application 12/982,467
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Iannacci
Kianian
US 2002/0062249 Al
US 2002/0194139 Al
The following rejection is before us for review.
May 23, 2002
Dec. 19, 2002
Claims 11-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iannacci and Kianian.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION
We will reverse the rejection of claims 11-26 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).
Each of independent claims 11 and 19 requires, in pertinent part,
the data further comprising transaction data
associated with an attempted transaction and
selection data indicating a selection of an account
type, and the data being routed over a particular
network determined based on the selection data;
analyzing the data by at least one processor, the
account type including one of a credit account and
a debit account, ....
(Emphasis added).
The Examiner relies on Iannacci at paragraph 325 to show this
feature. (Final 10).
Appellants argue,
Clearly, the disclosed use of these 'Debit' and
3
Appeal2014-000887
Application 12/982,467
'Credit' buttons is not for the purpose of allowing
the cardholder select account types at POS but 'to
send a signal indicating the activation of pre-set
instructions at the universal server (e.g., selecting
either a personal or business type of transaction
and the use of such related benefit profile).
(Appeal Br. 12).
We agree with Appellants. Our review of Iannacci at paragraph 325
reveals that the result of the user selecting "Debit" or Credit" at the POS
terminal is that pre-set instructions direct the transaction to designate the
transaction as one of a personal or business transaction. But, this does not
equate to, or make obvious, the "data being routed over a particular network
determined based on the selection data", as required by the claims. Nothing
in Iannacci suggests that the differentiation between a personal or business
transaction means that a different network is being used when one type of
transaction is selected over the other. Both types of accounts could be
managed by the same network. The ordinary and customary definition of a
"network" is "a system of computers, peripherals, terminals, and databases
connected by communications lines."2 In fact, in paragraph 325, Iannacci
discloses a Universal Server is programmed with the pre-set instructions,
which we find means that: 1. there is no selection via the attempted
transaction because instead, the pre-set instructions carry out the selection,
and 2. all accounts are managed by the one network up to at least the point
where the data reaches the Universal Server.
It is not apparent nor does the Examiner make clear how the selection
between one of debit or credit account types results in data being routed over
2 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/network (last visited
2/2/2016).
4
Appeal2014-000887
Application 12/982,467
a particular network based on the selection of the account type of one of a
debit or credit account.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of these independent
claims
Since claims 12-18and20-26dependfromoneofclaims 11and19,
and since we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 19, the rejection
of claims 12-18 and 20-26 likewise cannot be sustained.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 11-26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 11-26 is reversed.
REVERSED
5