Ex Parte Mirran

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2016

11763661 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111763,661 06/15/2007
23353 7590 03/10/2016
FISHMAN STEW ART PLLC
39533 WOODWARD A VENUE
SUITE 140
BLOOMFILED HILLS, MI 48304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Salar K. Mirran
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.
MIR-0002/US 4060
EXAMINER
LASTRA, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2016 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):
patentmail@fishstewip.com
bhrec@fishstewip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SALAR K. MIRRAN
Appeal2013-010669 1
Application 11/763,661 2
Technology Center 3600
Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-10 and 16-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Apr.
19, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 6, 2013), and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 8, 2013).
2 Appellant and inventor, Salar K. Mirran, is identified as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2013-010669
Application 11/763,661
CLAIMED fNVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention relates "to a learning incentive vehicle
that promotes individual learning efforts and funds charitable entities that
support children's learning programs. Spec. i-f 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notation, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for implementing a learning incentive vehicle
that promotes individual learning efforts and funds charitable
entities that support learning programs, the method comprising:
[(a)] issuing, by a computer, a learning incentive vehicle
having associated therewith a prescribed value and a charitable
reserve, wherein the learning incentive vehicle is used as an
incentive for a given individual to complete a learning task in
association with presentation of the learning incentive vehicle to
the given individual;
[(b)] providing, by a computer, the given individual a
credit for purchases according to the prescribed value in
connection with the completion of the learning task; and
[ ( c)] allocating, by a computer, the charitable reserve to a
charitable account for at least one charitable entity that supports
learning programs in association with usage of the learning
incentive vehicle.
REJECTION
Claims 1-10 and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Cohen (US 2006/0106774 Al, pub. May 18, 2006). 3
3 We treat as inadvertent error the Examiner's omission of claims 16-23
from the identification of claims subject to rejection (see Ans. 4), given their
treatment in the body of the rejection (see id. at 4---6).
2
Appeal2013-010669
Application 11/763,661
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 and 22
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Cohen does
not disclose limitations (a}---( c ), as recited in claim 1. The Examiner relies
on paragraphs 36-37 as disclosing the argued limitations.
Cohen describes a task fulfillment facilitator ("TFF") system that
facilitates task-related interactions between task performers and task
requesters. Cohen i-f 31. In one embodiment, the TFF system facilitates the
exchange of payments between the parties, e.g., to provide payments to the
task performers from the task requesters for satisfactory performance of the
submitted tasks. Id. i-f 36. In other embodiments, non-monetary
compensation is provided by the task requestors for the performance of
tasks, task performers for the opportunity to perform tasks, the TFF system
for specified types of activities, and/or third parties to transactions related to
task performance. Id. i-f 37. In some embodiments, compensation includes
credit and/or discounts for use at one or more online retailers. Id. In other
situations, a reward for performance may include recognition of the task
performer, such as by displaying information about "a task performed for a
task requestor that is a charity or otherwise benefits a charitable cause." Id.
We agree with Appellant (Appeal Br. 10) that Cohen's disclosure of
recognizing a task performer for work performed for a charity does not
disclose allocating a charitable reserve to a charitable account for at least
one charitable entity, i.e., limitation ( c ), as recited in claim 1.
3
Appeal2013-010669
Application 11/763,661
Moreover, we agree with Appellant (Appeal Br. 8-9) that none of the
embodiments described at paragraphs 36-37 of Cohen discloses an incentive
vehicle having both (1) a prescribed value that is provided to the individual
as a credit, and (2) a charitable reserve that is allocated to a charitable
account for at least one charitable entity, i.e., limitations (a}-(c), as recited in
claim 1.
Therefore we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and
dependent claims 2-5 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Independent claims 6 and 16, and dependent claims 7-10, 17-21, and 23
Independent claims 6 and 16 recite limitations substantially similar to
those discussed above for independent claim 1, and the Examiner provides
the same findings with respect to these limitations. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 6 and 16, and claims
7-10, 17-21, and 23, which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for
the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 and 16-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) is reversed.
REVERSED
4