Ex Parte Kay et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2017

13082654 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2017)

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.
13/082,654 04/08/2011 Christopher E. KAY CITI0379-US 6492
75127 7590 02/15/2017
DENTONS US LLP (CITI CUSTOMER NUMBER)
ATTN: Eric Sophir
P.O. BOX 061080
CHICAGO, IL 60606-1080
EXAMINER
TINKLER, MURIEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2017 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):
eric. sophir @ dentons. com
patents.us@dentons.com
#sg.citi-docket@dentons.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER E. KAY, SAM LISING, and
SOPNENDU MOHANTY
Appeal 2014-008563
Application 13/082,654
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, JAMES A. WORTH, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1—6, 8—15, and 17—20 which are all the claims pending
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2014-008563
Application 13/082,654
THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to methods and systems
for customizing financial applications on a user interface (Spec., para. 3).
Claim 10, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
10. A computer-implemented method for creating a financial
transaction application window on a user interface of a
touchpoint device, the method comprising:
verifying, by a server, the identification of a user to access
the user interface on the touchpoint device;
receiving, from the touchpoint device, a request from the
user to conduct a financial transaction;
receiving, from the touchpoint device, transaction
information for performing the financial transaction;
performing, by a server, the financial transaction;
presenting on the touchpoint device an option for the user
to create a financial transaction application window based upon
the received transaction information;
receiving, by a server, a selection by the user to create the
financial transaction application window;
storing in a database a record having information about the
financial transaction application window for the user’s user
interface; and
transmitting, by a server to the touchpoint device,
information for presenting the user interface with a financial
transaction application window for performing a transaction
based on the transaction information.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 10, 12—15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Fei (US 2003/0040959 Al, pub. Feb. 27, 2003).
2
Appeal 2014-008563
Application 13/082,654
2. Claims 1—6, 8, 9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fei and Rosenthal (US 2006/0259407 Al,
pub. Nov. 16, 2006).
3. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fei and Jennings (US 5,659,165, iss. Aug. 19, 1997).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.1
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 10 is improper
because the cited prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation for
“presenting on the touchpoint device an option for the user to create a
financial transaction application window based upon the received transaction
information” (App. Br. 3—6; Reply Br. 4, 5).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitation is found in Fei at Figure 11 (item 1122) and para. 205 (Ans. 13).
We agree with the Appellants. Here, the argued claim limitation
requires:
presenting on the touchpoint device an option of for the user to create
a financial transaction application window based on the received
transaction information
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal 2014-008563
Application 13/082,654
(Claim 10, emphasis added). Thus, the cited claim limitation requires
presenting an option for the user to create a financial transaction
application window. The Appellants have stated that support for this claim
limitation is found in the Specification at portions that include paragraphs
54, 55, and Figures 3h and 3j (App. Br. 3). In Fei, at para. 205, it is
disclosed that a user has the option of “customizing user interface screens”
using button 1122 that is shown in Figure 11. However, the interface screen
is merely “customized” instead of being “create[d'] . . . based upon the
received transaction information” as the claim requires (emphasis added).
For this reason, the rejection of claim 10 and its dependent claims is not
sustained.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the cited prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation requiring:
performing by a server, the financial transaction while the touchpoint
device displays at least the first transaction application window and
the second financial transaction application window, wherein the first
financial application window and the second financial transaction
application window are updated with real-time information.
(App. Br. 6, 7; Reply Br. 6, 7). Specifically, the Appellants argue that this
citation requires “two financial transaction application windows that are
each updated with real-time information” and that Rosenthal fails to disclose
this (App. Br. 7).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the above cited claim
limitation is found in Rosenthal at paras. 20, 63—65, and 200 (Ans. 10, 14).
4
Appeal 2014-008563
Application 13/082,654
We agree with the Examiner. The Appellants have argued that the
prior art fails to disclose “two financial transaction application windows that
are each updated with real-time information” (App. Br. 7). Rosenthal at
para. 63 states that a “multi-windowed GUI” is provided as is “real-time
market data.” Rosenthal at para. 200 also states that order ticket windows 84
and 84’ are provided. Here, Rosenthal’s disclosure of multiple windows and
real-time information meets the argued claim limitation. Regardless, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have readily inferred that it would be obvious
to use real-time information in the windows to provide the most up to date
information in the cited combination. For this reason, the rejection of claim
1 is sustained. The Appellants have presented the same arguments for the
remaining claims and these rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are sustained
as well.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims 10, 12—15, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as listed
in the Rejections section above.
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims 1—6, 8, 9, 11, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
listed in the Rejections section above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 12—15, and 19—20 is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6, 8, 9, 11, 17, and 18 is sustained.
5
Appeal 2014-008563
Application 13/082,654
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6