Ex Parte MonkDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 27, 201510692321 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/692,321 10/22/2003 Simon Monk B-5273 621389-7 8553 36716 7590 01/27/2015 LADAS & PARRY 5670 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90036-5679 EXAMINER RANGREJ, SHEETAL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/27/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SIMON MONK ____________________ Appeal 2012-0062471 Application 10/692,3212 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, 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 25–37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed September 6, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 9, 2011). 2 Appellant identifies Surecan Technology Pty, Ltd., Level 10, 1 Bligh Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia, as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal 2012-006247 Application 10/692,321 2 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to a system and method of providing an insurance product, and specifically, but not exclusively, to a system and method for providing travel insurance via a distributed computing network, such as the Internet” (Spec. 1, ll. 5–9). Claim 25, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 25. A computer system for providing a travel insurance product via an electronic network comprising: a computer server system, the server system including, a verification routine arranged to receive an identification request sent from a subscriber via the electronic network to the server system to verify the subscriber, a receiving module arranged to receive a subscriber request sent via the electronic network for the travel insurance product, a pricing module arranged to compute a price for the travel insurance product requested by the subscriber utilizing an object model stored in a database implemented on the computer server system modelling the travel insurance product as issued to the subscriber, the model having a plurality of attributes of a product, wherein the model enables a combination of the attributes to be created, the combination arranged to determine the price for the travel insurance product, a payment module arranged to communicate the price to the subscriber and receive payment details from the subscriber via the electronic network to execute payment via electronic transfer, and whereupon payment has been executed, an issuing component arranged to issue the insurance product to the subscriber and update the object model, characterised in that, the issuing component of the server system, in response to a further subscriber request Appeal 2012-006247 Application 10/692,321 3 allows the subscriber to vary at least one term of the issued travel insurance product via the electronic network by adjusting the combination of attributes through an electronic interface. REJECTIONS Claims 25–27 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by White (US 2002/0091550 A1, pub. July 11, 2002). Claims 28–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over White and Kleinberg (US 2001/0037265 A1, pub. Nov. 1, 2001). Claims 31–33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over White, Kleinberg, and Provost (US 6,341,265 B1, iss. Jan. 22, 2002). Claims 34–36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over White, Kleinberg, Provost, and Mori (US 6,070,148, iss. May 30, 2000). ANALYSIS Independent claims 25 and 37 and dependent claims 26 and 27 We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 25 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because White does not disclose “an issuing component . . . that . . . in response to a further subscriber request allows the subscriber to vary at least one term of the issued travel insurance product via the electronic network by adjusting the combination of attributes through an electronic interface,” as recited in independent claim 25, and similarly recited in independent claim 37 (Br. 9– 13). Appeal 2012-006247 Application 10/692,321 4 The Examiner directs our attention to paragraphs 95, 122, 123, 140, 153, 155–158, and 183 of White as disclosing the argued feature (Ans. 5–6 and 11). But we find nothing in the cited portions of White that discloses that an issuing component, in response to a subscriber request, allows the subscriber to vary at least one term of an issued travel insurance product, as called for in claims 25 and 37. White is directed to a system and method for real-time rating, underwriting, and policy issuance for the insurance industry (see White, Abstract), and describes a method for offering insurance to an applicant in real-time (see, e.g., White ¶ 95). Referring to Figure 2, White describes that information concerning the customer is requested and received, and is verified and supplemented through access to third party sources. A final rate/offer then is generated and presented to the customer, and, if accepted, a policy is issued and delivered to the customer (see id.). White discloses that the offer is generated in real-time, and priced based on traditional, industry standard rating and underwriting principles (i.e., standard base rates). In some embodiments, the offer price may be modified based on dynamic pricing principles, which involve base rate change recommendations based on changes in customer demand and consumption behavior (see White ¶¶ 122, 123, 140, 153, 155–158 and 183). However, any such price changes occur before the offer is presented to the customer, i.e., before the policy is issued. We find nothing in the cited portions of White that discloses that dynamic pricing allows a subscriber to vary at least one term of an issued insurance policy, as required by claims 25 and 37. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims of independent claims 25 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). For Appeal 2012-006247 Application 10/692,321 5 the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 26 and 27, which depend from claim 25. Dependent claims 28–36 Each of claims 28–36 ultimately depends from claim 25. The Examiner does not establish on this record that any of the additional references relied on in rejecting these dependent claims cures the deficiency of White as described above with respect to claim 25. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 28–36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 25–27 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 28–36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED Ssc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation