Ex Parte Kemper et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

12878877 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/878,877 09/09/2010 Lynn Kemper
66945 7590 09/29/2016
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP/VISA
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
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.
80083-788993 5808
EXAMINER
AMELUNXEN, BARBARA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
j lhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
EDurrell@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LYNN KEMPER, AKSHEY "SHAWN" VIJ, and
ROBIN O'CONNELL
Appeal2014-007850
Application 12/878,877
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 3, 6-11, 14-18, and 22-26. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-007850
Application 12/878,877
Appellants' invention is directed generally to financial transaction
processing. (Spec., para. 1 ).
Claim 11 is illustrative:
11. A method comprising:
receiving user selections of parameters corresponding to
constraints, wherein the constraints include a total amount of
transactions conducted by a user, and a merchant or a merchant
type;
storing the user selected parameters in a parameter table
database;
determining, by a subprocessor, whether a total amount for
a plurality of transactions conducted by a user and the merchant
or merchant type are met by the plurality of transactions;
sending, by the subprocessor, a message to the user only
when a transaction in the plurality of transactions causes the
plurality of transactions to meet the total amount, a[ ] merchant
or a merchant type; and
authorizing, by the subprocessor, and not denying, the
transaction that causes the plurality of transactions to meet the
total amount.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 3, 6-11, 14--18, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Stevanovski (US 7,653,597 Bl, iss. Jan. 26,
2010) and D'Agostino (US 2002/0120587 Al, pub. Aug. 29, 2002).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stevanovski, D'Agostino, and May (US 7,610,216 Bl, iss. Oct. 27, 2009).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stevanovski, D' Agostino, and Praisner (US 2002/0174030 Al, pub. Nov.
21, 2002).
2
Appeal2014-007850
Application 12/878,877
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stevanovski, D'Agostino, and Toman (WO 00/46769, pub. Aug. 10, 2000).
ANALYSIS
Claims 3, 6--11, 14-18, 22, and 23
Appellants argue independent claims 3 and 11 together as a group,
based on claim 11. Appeal Br. 4. We select claim 11 as representative. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the combination
of Stevanovski and D' Agostino fails to disclose:
sending, by the subprocessor, a message to the user only
when a transaction in the plurality of transactions causes the
plurality of transactions to meet the total amount, a[ ] merchant
or a merchant type; and
authorizing, by the subprocessor, and not denying, the
transaction that causes the plurality of transactions to meet the
total amount.
Appeal Br. 5-7; see also Reply Br. 2-3.
Stevanovski discloses "[ w ]hen the customer is within a predefined
percentage, such as 10% of the credit limit, the notification program 44 will
be activated to deliver a real-time electronic notice to the customer advising
of this fact." Stevanovski, col. 4, 1. 65 to col. 5, 1. 1. Stevanovski, thus,
discloses in this example a threshold at 90% of a credit limit at which point a
message is sent to a user. However, the ordinary artisan would recognize
that a transaction which causes a current total balance to exceed the level
that is 10% below the credit limit, but which does not exceed the full credit
limit, would be authorized. The above sentence of Stevanovski, cited at
page 10 of the Answer, thus, meets the disputed claim language.
3
Appeal2014-007850
Application 12/878,877
As a result, we find the disclosure of D 'Agostino, pertaining to
purchases falling outside of maximum limits, to be cumulative. See
D'Agostino, para. 15.
In any case, are also not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that
there is no reason to combine D 'Agostino' s "maximum dollar amount for
purchases" to Stevanovski' s system. Appeal Br. 8-9. Stevanovski ties the
notification threshold to an amount related to the authorization limit, such as
90% of the credit limit in the cited example at column 4. D' Agostino merely
suggests a completely different value for the notification threshold, as a
stated "maximum dollar amount," which, as the Examiner notes, provides a
"wider range of options to the customer." Final Act. 15.
The Examiner has, thus, provided sufficient "articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with
approval inKSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 6-11, 14--18,
22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 24-26
Appellants argue separately rejected claims 24--26 only by reference
to the arguments directed to claim 3, from which these claims depend.
Appeal Br. 10. We, thus, sustain the rejections of these claims for the same
reasons we set forth above.
4
Appeal2014-007850
Application 12/878,877
DECISION
We affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 3, 6-11,
14--18, and 22-26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5