Ex Parte Malleis et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 28, 201612749786 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121749,786 03/30/2010 Joseph Thomas Malleis 26158 7590 09/30/2016 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP ATTN: IP DOCKETING P.O. BOX 7037 ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037 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. C302 1010.1 7663 EXAMINER EVANS, KIMBERLYL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3629 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/30/2016 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): IPDocketing@WCSR. COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSEPH THOMAS MALLEIS and KEITH MCCREERY Appeal2014-006439 Application 12/749,7861 Technology Center 3600 Before, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 and 22-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Appellants identify Compliance Systems, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2014-006439 Application 12/749,786 Claim 1 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A computer-implemented method for rendering a plurality of transaction documents used in a transaction, the method compnsmg: retrieving, by at least one computing processor, a plurality of unpopulated transaction documents to be used in the transaction; receiving, by the at least one computing processor, transaction information to be used in the transaction and storing the transaction information in a uniform hierarchical format, wherein the transaction information comprises information corresponding to each of a plurality of entities to the transaction, wherein the uniform hierarchical format associates a plurality of roles to at least one of the plurality of entities to the transaction; populating, by the at least one computing processor, the plurality of unpopulated transaction documents for use in the transaction with transaction information from the uniform hierarchical format associated with the plurality of unpopulated transaction documents for use in the transaction to create a plurality of populated transaction documents, wherein the populating comprises: identifying a role associated with one of the plurality of unpopulated transaction documents, and retrieving information from the uniform hierarchical format, the information corresponding to one of the plurality of entities to the transaction for whom the role is one of the plurality of roles associated therewith by the uniform hierarchical format; and rendering, by the computing processor, the plurality of populated transaction documents for the transaction. 2 Appeal2014-006439 Application 12/749,786 THE REJECTION2 The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beres et al. (US 2005/0210040 Al, published Sept. 22, 2005) in view ofKishore (US 2004/0049445 Al, published Mar. 11, 2004). ANALYSIS Each of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 require in one form another: transaction information comprises information corresponding to each of a plurality of entities to the transaction, wherein the uniform hierarchical format associates a plurality of roles to at least one of the plurality of entities to the transaction; populating, by the at least one computing processor, the plurality of unpopulated transaction documents for use in the transaction with transaction information from the uniform hierarchical format ... retrieving information from the uniform hierarchical format, the information corresponding to one of the plurality of entities to the transaction for whom the role is one of the plurality of roles associated therewith by the uniform hierarchical format; and .... Claim 1, Appx. 2 The Examiner withdraws the rejection under 35 USC§ l 12(b ). (Answer 8). 3 Appeal2014-006439 Application 12/749,786 The Examiner found concerning this limitation that Beres discloses this feature: (see at least paragraph 10: " ... Curing links are created which each define a curing relationship between one of the records associated with a lien document and a second one of the records associated with a cure document that releases the lien. One or more sentinel links are also created. Each sentinel link associates one of the records to an indicator of an organizational property associated with the record. The records are color coded with a color indicating a category of the record. The color coded records and the created links are displayed. The displayed attributes of the records include a recordation date, a reception number, and a document category ") (Answer 4--5). Appellants however argue: Figure 7 of Beres depicts records and organizational links displayed in a hierarchical tree format. Assuming arguendo that Beres's hierarchical tree format corresponds to the claimed uniform hierarchical format (which Appellants do not concede), Beres fails to teach or suggest that the hierarchical tree format of Figure 7 associates a plurality of roles to at least one of the plurality of entities to the transaction. In particular, paragraph 4 of Beres states that "each record has a plurality of attributes associated with a document recorded with a government entity. A plurality of organization links are created which defines a relationship from a first document associated with one of the records to a second document associated with a second one of the records. The records and the created links are displayed." In other words, Beres simply discloses creating organization links that define relationship between documents and displaying these links. However, there is no disclosure in Beres of associating a plurality of roles (such 4 Appeal2014-006439 Application 12/749,786 as, for example, "borrower", "account owner", etc.) to at least one of a plurality of entities (such as, for example, "individual") to the transaction. (Appeal Br. 9-10). We agree with Appellants. We construe the claims to require three tiers in the uniform hierarchical format, namely, tier 1: transaction information, tier 2: entities to transaction, tier 3: role of each entity. The claim then further requires that the data of the third tier, namely, the role of each entity, causes: retrieving information from the uniform hierarchical format, the information corresponding to one of the plurality of entities to the transaction for whom the role is one of the plurality of roles associated therewith by the uniform hierarchical format; .... Our review of Beres at paragraph 4 shows that Beres discloses "[a] plurality of organization links are created which defines a relationship from a first document associated with one of the records to a second document associated with a second one of the records." But, nothing is disclosed in Beres at this section about using this link to "populat[ e], by the at least one computing processor, the plurality of unpopulated transaction documents for use in the transaction with transaction information from the uniform hierarchical format ... [.]" The Examiner also cites to paragraph 10 of Beres to meet the populating limitation. (Answer 5-6). However, our review of Beres at this section only reveals that the linking relationships between documents is such 5 Appeal2014-006439 Application 12/749,786 that the "records are color coded with a color indicating a category of the record." (Beres, para. 10). The Examiner cites to Kishore at paragraph 52 to meet the claimed "populating" limitation. (Answer 4--5). Our review of Kishore at paragraph 52 reveals that the closing agent must, him or herself, access and select the title report which is populated. (Kishore, para. 52). Thus, there is no populating by roles associated with the uniform hierarchical format as required by the claims. Since claims 2-5, 9-12, 16-19, 22-24 depend from one of claims 1, 8 and 15, and since we cannot sustain the rejection of the independent claims, the rejection of the dependent claims likewise cannot be sustained. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 8-12. 15-19 and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation