Ex Parte Hoke

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

13442193 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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.
13/442,193 04/09/2012 Amy Beth Hoke BT-066 7385
43076 7590 12/02/2016
MARK D. SARALINO (GENERAL)
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE, NINETEENTH FLOOR
EXAMINER
POLLOCK, GREGORY A
CLEVELAND, OH 44115-2191 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 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):
ipdocket @ rennerotto. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMY BETH HOKE
Appeal 2014-009416
Application 13/442,193
Technology Center 3600
Before, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—14, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellant identifies Bottomline Technologies (DE) Inc. as the real
party in interest. (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2014-009416
Application 13/442,193
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant claims a an electronic payment and remittance system
which assesses a variable transaction fee to each vendor and provides each
vendor with a different level of service based on aggregate transaction fees
paid. (Spec. 1,11. 4—7). Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for making payments from each payer of a
community of payers to each vendor of a community of vendors,
assessing a variable transaction fee to each vendor, and providing
to each vendor one of multiple levels of services based on
aggregate transaction fees, the system comprising:
a payment application comprising instructions stored in a
computer readable memory and executed by a processor, the
instructions comprising:
for each payment initiated by a payer to a transaction
vendor, the transaction vendor being one of the vendors within
the payer vendor group associated with the payer:
determining a transaction fee:
looking up, in a database, a transaction fee percentage
associated with the transaction vendor;
determining the product of an amount of the payment
multiplied by the transaction fee percentage, such product being
the transaction fee; and
for each vendor, assigning the vendor to one of at least
three service tiers by:
calculating a vendor aggregate transaction fee, the vendor
aggregate transaction fee being the sum of each transaction fee
applied to each payment initiated by any payer to the vendor
during a predetermined period of time;
assigning the vendor to a first of the at least three service
tiers if the aggregate transaction fee is lower than a first threshold
amount;
assigning the vendor to a second of the at least three
service tiers if the aggregate transaction fee is greater then the
first threshold amount and less than a second threshold amount;
and
Appeal 2014-009416
Application 13/442,193
assigning the vendor to a third of the at least three service
tiers if the aggregate transaction fee is greater than the second
threshold amount;
providing to each vendor a menu object for rendering on a
vendor system, the menu object rendering controls for multiple
functions available for selection:
the quantity of functions available for selection in the
menu object provided to each vendor in the first service tier being
fewer than the quantity of functions available for selection in the
menu object provided to each vendor in the second service tier
and the third service tier; and
the quantity of functions available for selection in the
menu object provided to each vendor in the second service tier
being fewer than the quantity of functions available for selection
in the menu object provided to each vendor in the third service
tier.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yamaguchi et al. (“Yamaguchi”) US 2003/0046225 A1 Mar. 6, 2003
Smith at al. (“Smith”) US 2006/0059087 Al Mar. 16, 2006
Sims et al. (“Sims”) US 2010/0274714 Al Oct. 28, 2010
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Yamaguchi and Smith.
The Examiner rejected claims 2—5, 7—10, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yamaguchi, Smith, and Sims.
Appeal 2014-009416
Application 13/442,193
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Yamaguchi discloses a user inputs a “sum of money of the fund
transfer” along with other data for the transfer. (Yamaguchi para. 52).
2. Yamaguchi discloses a fee for a funds transfer is determined based on
input variables provided by a user and the use of a fee database
established by a bank. {Id. para. 53).
3. Smith discloses that tiers and scaling factors based on accumulated data
about transactions “allows a payment processor to decrease the risk of
processing payments by charging payment processing rates that reflect
the actual risk of processing payments for a merchant.” (Smith
para. 66).
4. Smith discloses determining net revenue to the card processor “for
determining whether or not to accept a merchant based upon merchant
account data.” {Id. at para. 35).
5. The Specification describes by example vendor systems in Figure 3 at
elements 61 A, 6IB, and 61C. (Spec. 43,11. 27—29).
6. The Specification describes that vendor systems
include: i) a web browser 61 a on a workstation or other computer
which accesses system 10 via a web connection; ii) a tablet
computer 61 b such as an iPad which accesses the system 10
utilizing a custom client application on the tablet; and iii) other
mobile devices 61c such as smart phones which access the
system 10 utilizing a custom client application on the mobile
device, in each case over permutations of the internet, wired or
wireless internet service provider networks, and a local area
network.
(Spec. 17,11. 9-16).
Appeal 2014-009416
Application 13/442,193
7. The Specification describes “a template for vendors in Tier 1 is
represented as it would be graphically rendered on a vendor system 61
(Figure 3). The template shows functions that are available to Tier 2
and Tier 3 vendors as unavailable to Tier 1 vendors, such functions
being, strictly for exemplary purposes, reporting of 15 scheduled
payments and all invoicing functions.” (Spec. 44,11. 11—15).
8. Appellant’s Figure 18A shows an example template of functions
available, or unavailable, to a merchant, as shown below:
Payment Network Reporting
Recent: Activity View Payments Received
xxxxx Scheduled-Payments
Messages -ftwefe&f
XXXXX Manage-Invoiccs
Upload Invoices
Appellant’s Figure 18A showing a menu object that provides
functions rendered on a vendor system, including functions not
available based on tier.
9. Yamaguchi discloses menu objects at browser interfaces in Figure 9A
and 9B, shown below:
Appeal 2014-009416
Application 13/442,193
FIG. 9A FIG. 98
* " _____ ..._______
V ^ ru * V ^ i. 1 ' c is
s 7 *' ^ e v h ^ ' ysf N' \ ' V
^ V.N »v .* ' v’‘\ ? -s \ ' % < v O' c\ VN ^ ? \ rtjf;
w v v s i' Xs" s\:
vSSJ, v v SK ^ \X •* .. F' ’V' o 'R* ,^s. •v ■> -i ....ttr
v ,.n \\ vA v