Ex Parte Koenigsman et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 28, 2011

11460545 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL JAMES KOENIGSMAN ERIC FRANKLIN VAN
BEAUMONT, CYNTHIA J. HARTIGAN, RENE’ JEANNE LAROSE,
STEPHEN E. PARR, PIJUSH DUTTA,
and KERRY ANN MILONI-THIELE
____________

Appeal 2010-001345
Application 11/460,545
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and JOSEPH A.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 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 2010-001345
Application 11/460,545

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and
18-202. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and
6 (2002).
The claimed invention is directed to automated post-issuance
presentation account management systems and methods (Spec., para.
[0002]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A method of managing one or more presentation
instrument accounts, comprising:
receiving at a host computer system information from a
client defining an account management rule, wherein the rule
comprises:
a client-defined event;
a condition; and
an action to be taken if the condition is satisfied upon an
occurrence of the client-defined event;
at the host computer system, monitoring the one or more
presentation instrument accounts for the occurrence of the
client-defined event;
at the host computer system, upon the occurrence of the
client-defined event for a specific account, evaluating the
account management rule;
based on the evaluation, taking the action, thereby
managing the account without human intervention; and
providing notification of the action to an individual.

Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as anticipated by Black (US Pat. 7,117,172 B1, iss. Oct. 3, 2006).
We REVERSE.

2 Appellants do not appeal the rejection of claims 2, 10, and 17 (See App. Br.
2).
Appeal 2010-001345
Application 11/460,545

3
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Black
anticipates the subject matter of claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18-20 (Exam’r’s
Ans. 4-6; Reply Br. 1-3). Specifically, we are persuaded that the portions of
Black cited by the Examiner do not disclose a “client-defined event,” as
recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 15. Black discloses the writing of
rules to perform actions when triggered by specific events (col. 3, ll. 52-53;
col. 10, ll. 53-57; col. 64, l. 62 through col. 65, l. 4). However, the portions
of Black cited by the Examiner are silent as to who defines the events, client
or otherwise. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1, 9, and 15, and their respective dependent claims on
appeal.

REVERSED

hh

KILPATRICK, TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER
EIGHTH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3834