Ex Parte Knowles et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 28, 201110370676 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2011) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P 0 Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313- 1450 www uspto go". APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. I 101370,676 02/21/2003 W. Jeffrey Knowles 7074.0003 1034 84278 7590 03/02/20 1 1 Robert D. Atkins 605 W. Knox Road, Suite 104 Tempe, AZ 85284 EXAMINER KARMIS, STEFANOS r ARTUNIT 1 PAPERNUMBER 1 Please find below andlor attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. NOTIFICATION DATE The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. DELIVERY MODE Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): 03/02/2011 ELECTRONIC main @plgaz.com moneill @plgaz.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Exparte W. JEFFREY KNOWLES, RUSSELL HALES DAY, DAVID J. MATTHEWS, JEFFREY R. BURKE, SCOTT E. WESSMAN, A. CARL0 OKOLOWITZ, and JOSEPH B. EMIG Appeal 2009-013 187 Application 101370,676 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL' 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 41.52, begins to run from the "MAIL DATE" (paper delivery mode) or the "NOTIFICATION DATE" (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-013 187 Application 101370,676 STATEMENT OF THE CASE W. Jeffrey Knowles et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. 5 134 (2010) of the final rejection of claims 1-7,9-14, and 16-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b) (2010). Claims 21 and 23-28 are canceled. ' App. Br. 2. SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. THE INVENTION This invention is a "system and method of electronically processing data transactions." Specification [0002]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system for processing financial transactions between first and second parties, comprising: a first financial institution having an electronic communication link for providing access to a credit instrument for the first party; ' In the Appeal Brief, the Appellants indicate that claims 21 and 23-28 are canceled. App. Br. 3. However, the Answer includes claims 21 and 23-28 in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) over Weiss, Kozlowski, and Kling as on review. Answer 3. We will only address the rejection of claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20. Upon return of the application to the Examiner, appropriate action should be taken on claims 21 and 23-28. See 37 C.F.R 5 41.33 (2010). 3 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed May 22, 2007) and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed Sep. 24, 2007). Appeal 2009-013 187 Application 101370,676 a second financial institution having an electronic communication link for acquiring transactions from the second party; an association having an electronic communication link to the first financial institution for providing data processing services; and a transaction processing center operating with electronic communication links between the second financial institution and the association, wherein the transaction processing center includes: (a) a data separation processor receiving and separating the transactions into high-throughput purchase transactions and low-throughput batch transactions, the data separation processor separating the high-throughput purchase transactions from the low-throughput batch transactions by message content or file attribute associated with the high-throughput purchase transactions and the low-throughput batch transactions, the data separation processor further formatting the high-throughput purchase transactions and the low-throughput batch transactions for transmission through the transaction processing center, (b) a first data processing channel coupled to a first output of the data separation processor and dedicated to transmitting the high-throughput purchase transactions within the system, the first data processing channel being continuously open and active for high-throughput processing, and (c) a second data processing channel, separate from the first data processing channel, coupled to a second output of the data separation processor and dedicated to transmitting the low- throughput batch transactions within the system with a lower system priority than the high- throughput purchase transactions, the second data processing channel including an incoming queue Appeal 2009-013 187 Application 101370,676 for receiving the low-throughput batch transactions, a data processor for reading the low- throughput batch transactions from the incoming queue and placing the low-throughput batch transactions in local storage, and an outgoing queue for receiving the low-throughput batch transactions from the local storage and transmitting the low-throughput batch transactions through the second output of the data separation processor. THE REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability : Kling US 5,878,215 Mar. 2, 1999 Weiss US 200210174031 A1 Nov. 21,2002 Kozlowski US 6,513,070 B1 Jan. 28,2003 The following rejection is before us for review: 1. Claims 1-7, 9-14 and 16-21 are rejectedunder 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Weiss, Kozlowski, and Kling . ISSUE The issue is whether claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-21, and 23-28 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 9 103(a) over Weiss, Kozlowski, and Kling. Specifically, the issue is whether the Examiner has established a prima facie showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led by the combination of Weiss, Kozlowski, and Kling to limitation (c) above. Appeal 2009-013 187 Application 101370,676 ANALYSIS Claims 1-6 The Appellants argue that the combination of Weiss, Kozlowksi, and Kling fails to teach or suggest: (c) a second data processing channel . . . the second data processing channel including an incoming queue for receiving the low-throughput batch transactions, a data processor for reading the low-throughput batch transactions from the incoming queue and placing the low-throughput batch transactions in local storage, and an outgoing queue for receiving the low-throughput batch transactions from the local storage and transmitting the low-throughput batch transaction through the second output of the data separation processor. Claim 1. Br. 19-21 In response, the Examiner characterizes this limitation as a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention and asserts that "Weiss in view of Kozlowski in further view of Kling is capable of utilizing an incomingloutgoing queue for processing the communication over the low- throughput batch transaction data channel." Answer 10- 1 1. However, we find that the Examiner has mischaracterized the limitation at issue as a recitation of an intended use. The limitation at issue contains structural limitations (e.g., a data processor and local storage), which must be shown to be taught by the Examiner's proposed combination. In the rejection, while the Examiner does not mention the data processor or local storage when addressing the second data channel limitation. See Answer 4. We find that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie Appeal 2009-013 187 Application 101370,676 showing of obviousness in rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have overcome the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-6 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) over Weiss, Kozlowski, and Kling . Claims 7 and 9-1 3 Like claim 1 above, claim 7 also recites a second data processing channel that includes an incoming queue for receiving the low-throughput batch transactions, a data processor for reading the low-throughput batch transactions from the incoming queue and placing the low-throughput batch transactions through the second output of the data separation processor. The Examiner relied upon the same rationale to reject claim 7 as used to reject claim 1. Answer 5. For the reasons discussed above with regard to claim 1, we find that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie showing of obviousness. Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have overcome the rejection of claim 7, and claims 9-13, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) over Weiss, Kozlowski, and Kling. Claims 14 and 16-20 Claim 14 recites a method, which includes a step of "locally storing the low-throughput transactions in a data storage device within the second data processing channel." The Examiner relied upon the same rationale to reject claim 14 as used to reject claim 1. Answer 5. For the reasons discussed above with regard to claim 1, we find that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie showing of obviousness. Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have overcome the rejection of claim 14, and claims 16- Appeal 2009-013 187 Application 101370,676 20, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) over Weiss, Kozlowski, and Kling . DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. 5 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 5 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2010). REVERSED mev Robert D. Atkins 605 W. Knox Road, Suite 104 Tempe AZ 85284 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation