Ex Parte Monk

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 17, 2007

10694925 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 17, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding precedent
of the Board.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___________

Ex parte JUSTIN MONK
___________

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925
Technology Center 3600
___________

Decided: July 17, 2007
___________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and ANTON W.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
This appeal from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, the only claims
pending in this application, arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.

We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
The Appellant invented a way for managing integrated credit and stored-value
programs involving transactions to be processed with a customer at a point of sale
with combined stored-value and credit instruments. In one embodiment, a
transaction amount is received at a point-of-sale device, along with information
identifying an instrument, e.g. a card, associated with a stored-value account and a
credit account. The stored-value account and the credit account are linked
substantially contemporaneously with issuance of the instrument to the customer.
A distribution of the cost for the transaction among the stored-value and credit
accounts is selected at the point-of-sale device, and that distribution is applied to
the stored-value and credit accounts.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 1, which is reproduced below.
1. A method for processing a transaction with a customer at a point of
sale, the method comprising:
receiving, at a point-of-sale device, a cost for the transaction;
receiving, at the point-of-sale device, instrument-identification
information identifying an instrument associated with a stored-value
account and a credit account, wherein the stored-value account and
the credit account were linked substantially contemporaneously with
issuance of the instrument to the customer;
generating a request to select a distribution of the cost for the
transaction among the stored-value and credit accounts for
presentation at the point-of-sale device;
receiving, at the point of sale device, a response to the request that
identifies a selected distribution identifying a first nonzero portion of
the cost for the transaction to be applied to the stored-value account
and a second nonzero portion of the cost for the transaction to be
applied to the credit account; and
2

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

transmitting, from the point-of-sale device, instructions to apply the
cost for the transaction to the stored-value and credit accounts in
accordance with the received response.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

This appeal arises from the Examiner’s Final Rejection, mailed November 25,
2005. The Appellant filed an Appeal Brief in support of the appeal on June 22,
2006, and the Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief on
September 13, 2006. A Reply Brief was filed on October 24, 2006.

PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Cameron US 5,839,117 Nov. 17, 1998
Melchione US 5,930,764 Jul. 27, 1999
Blossom US 6,631,849 B2 Oct. 14, 2003

REJECTION
Appellant seeks review of the following Examiner’s rejection.
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Blossom,
Cameron, and Melchione.

3

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

ISSUES 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Examiner finds that Blossom discloses receiving at a POS device a cost for
a transaction identifying an instrument associated with a stored-value account and
a credit account and generating a request to select a distribution of the cost for the
transaction among the stored-value and credit accounts for presentation at the
point-of-sale device. The Examiner finds that the step of transmitting the cost
payment to the financial institution is obvious and old to the card reader art and is
accomplished in Cameron. (Answer 4.)
However, the Examiner finds that Blossom does not disclose the stored-value
account and the credit account linked substantially contemporaneously with
issuance of the instrument to the customer, nor does it teach a selected distribution
identifying a first non zero portion of the cost of the trans action applied to a stored
value and a second non zero portion of the cost of the transaction to be applied to a
credit card. (Answer 4.)
To overcome this deficiency, the Examiner finds that Cameron discloses
selecting a non zero portion of a charge to be allocated between two credit cards, a
credit card and a stored value instrument, or between two stored value instruments.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the POS sales
device of Blossom to include the receiving at the POS terminal of a response in the
form of an elective distribution feature of allocating payments between stored
value gift certificate and credit card as taught by Cameron to limit the use of the
credit cards and their attendant high rates of interest. (Answer 4.)
The Examiner finds that Cameron provides the limitation of substantially
contemporaneously linking the stored values and the credit card, based on its
scheme of Fig. 1 showing a linked system, which the Examiner reads as being
4

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

substantially contemporaneous. In addition, the Examiner finds that Melchione
discloses a system where, in a single session, accounts are linked together. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been an obvious modification to Blossom
to include the single session linking feature to link the stored value and the credit
accounts at substantially the same time, to keep both accounts as an option from
the beginning of the card's use. (Answer 4-5.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Appellant contends that, whereas claim 1 calls for a point of sale device
configured to distribute portions of the amount of a transaction between two
accounts associated with the same instrument, the references simply do not teach
nonzero payment distributions for a transaction at a point of sale device between
two accounts associated with the same instrument. Blossom teaches a reader which
selects a single account at a time, not the distribution between two accounts
explicitly taught by the claim. Thus, Blossom is relied upon to teach what appears
to be already known in the art, i.e. a single card associated with two or more
accounts. The Appellant further argues that Blossom does not suggest that it may
be modified to distribute the cost for the transaction among the accounts. The
Appellant concludes that Blossom cannot be relied upon to teach a nonzero
distribution between such accounts from a point-of-sale device. (Br. 4.)
The Appellant argues that Cameron's system comprises a graphical user
interface with an order payment window, and therefore, suggests a graphical
"window" including various "capture fields," clearly directed at remote order entry,
not a point-of-sale transaction. The Appellant concludes that there is simply no
teaching or suggestion for nonzero distributions at a point-of-sale device. The
Appellant also argues that there is no suggestion in Cameron that the distribution
of a transaction amount be to different accounts from the same instrument. The
5

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

Appellant admits that the billing module of Cameron does include the ability to
allocate payment across different methods, but contends that there is simply no
suggestion that the different payment methods be associated with the same
instrument. (Br. 4-5.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Appellant then argues that one would not have combined Blossom with
Cameron to form the claimed invention. It is argued that that the issues associated
with a point-of-sale transaction are very different than those associated with a
remote order entry, and Cameron, therefore, may only be fairly relied upon to
teach the "ability to allocate an order across a plurality of payment methods" in the
context of a computerized, remote order entry. There is no suggestion applying
such a distribution at a point-of-sale device, nor any limitation reciting use with a
single instrument associated with a stored-value account and a credit account.
Neither suggests nonzero payment distributions at a point of sale device for
different accounts associated with the same instrument. Moreover, there is no
suggestion in the references to modify the teachings of Blossom to include
Cameron. The Appellant argues that the motivation found by the Examiner does
not constitute proper motivation - it addresses a user's motivation to use the
system, and not a motivation to combine the teachings of the references. (Br. 5-6.)
The Appellant also argues that Melchione has no disclosure of a stored-value
account and credit account being linked substantially contemporaneously with
issuance of an instrument associated with both accounts. Claim 1 specifically
recites that a stored-value account and credit account be linked substantially
contemporaneously with issuance of the instrument to the customer. The Appellant
contends that the Abstract in Melchione fails to teach this limitation, and the
citations to other parts of Melchione are unclear. (Br. 6.)
6

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

Thus, the issue pertinent to this appeal is whether the rejection of claims 1-7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Blossom, Cameron, and Melchione is
proper. This issue turns on whether one of ordinary skill would have applied
Cameron’s automated payment allocation across multiple accounts to the multiple
accounts on Blossom’s card, and on the amount of patentable weight afforded to
the limitation that a past structural limitation of linkage between accounts and the
card were contemporaneous, and to the degree such weight is afforded, whether
one of ordinary skill would have contemporaneously made the linkage with
Blossom’s card in view of Melchione’s teachings.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF), supported by substantial
evidence, are pertinent to the above issues.
Claim Construction
01. The specification provides no lexicographic definition for the terms
“instrument” and “stored-value.”
02. The usual and ordinary meaning of “instrument,” as it relates to a
financial transaction, is a legal document, such as a deed, will, mortgage,
or insurance policy1.
03. The usual and ordinary meaning of “store,” as a verb, is to reserve or
put away for future use. Thus, the usual and ordinary meaning of
“stored-value” is value reserved or put away for future use.

1 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th Edition. 2000).
7

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

Blossom 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
04. Blossom is directed towards a financial services vehicle, such as
plastic credit cards of the type commonly associated with credit cards,
ATM banking cards, security cards, or identification cards. More
specifically, it relates to a selectable, multi-purpose card having a
plurality of features stored in memory means operatively mounted on the
card and selection means mounted on the card or a card reader allowing
a user to select a card feature in a single step. The features when selected
allow the card to function as a different card and/or to perform functions
not traditionally available in financial plastic cards. (Blossom, col. 1, ll.
5-16.)
05. Blossom states that when a transaction is to be performed at a retail
store, a customer hands his or her card to an employee of the retail store
and the employee then scans the magnetic information into a
communication device. (Blossom, col. 1, ll. 26-29.)
06. Blossom describes a stored-value card, being a widespread use of
smart card technology, which contains monetary value in the microchip
embedded in the card. For example, each time a consumer uses a chip
card in a vending machine, the amount of the purchase is deducted from
the cash balance stored in the microchip on the chip card. (Blossom, col.
2, ll. 1-6.)
07. Blossom states that two objects of Blossom’s invention are to provide
a thin, flexible, card that combines the functions of different cards into a
single card instrument, and to provide a card that includes a plurality of
features and selection means that allow a user to select a desired feature
8

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

preferably in a single step, prior to presenting the card to a sales person
or using the card. (Blossom, col. 2, ll. 48-55.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
08. Blossom states that its card can be, for example, a debit card, a credit
card, a transfer funds card, a smart card, a stored-value card, a gift card,
an ATM card, a security card or-an identification card. The features may
allow the card to function as a different card, such as a credit card, debit
card, ATM bank card, stored value card, security card, identity card and
the like. (Blossom, col. 3, ll. 13-18.)
09. Blossom states that its card may also include means for providing or
processing either account, identity, payment, health, transactional, or
other information and communicating with central processing units or
computers operated by the providers of services, such as credit card
institutions, banks, health care providers, universities, retailers,
wholesalers or other providers of goods or services employers, or
membership organizations. (Blossom, col. 3, ll. 18-25.)
10. Blossom states that its card features may also enable the card to
communicate with or be accessed by other devices, including those used
by retailers (point of sale computers), and personal computers used in
other business applications or at home, for example, a personal computer
using a built-in or attached card reader. (Blossom, col. 3, ll. 26-18.)
11. The Examiner’s findings that Blossom discloses receiving at a POS
device a cost for a transaction identifying an instrument associated with
a stored-value account and a credit account and generating a request to
select a distribution of the cost for the transaction among the stored-
value and credit accounts for presentation at the point-of-sale device are
9

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

not disputed by the Appellant, although the Appellant disputes that
Blossom shows an allocation of multiple non-zero amounts (Appeal Br.
4).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Cameron
12. Cameron is directed towards computerized event-driven routing in an
order entry system. One embodiment of Cameron’s invention provides
computerized user assistance and marketing functions during the user’s
order placement. This occurs by defining one or more user-initiated
events and one or more application points. Each of the application points
is associated with at least one of the user-initiated events. An action is
assigned to each of the application points. The actions assigned to a
particular application point are dynamically invoked upon initiation of
the user-initiated event associated with that application point, in order
that the user is provided with the action at a point during the placement
of an order at which the action is needed. (Cameron, col. 2, ll. 41-62.)
13. Cameron describes one of the key features of billing module 36 as the
ability to allocate an order total across a plurality of payment methods.
Any combination of the customer's previously used payment methods, or
new payment method or methods may be assigned to an order as long as
at least one payment method is selected. As is shown in FIG. 13, the
customer may allocate either a dollar amount or a percent of the total
order amount to each payment method, with the exception of coupons
and gift certificates that state a specific dollar off amount. The dollar
amount allocation is captured in dollar amount data capture field 116,
while the percent to allocate is captured in percent data capture field 118.
10

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

The amount to be billed is automatically calculated by the preferred
order entry system and captured in the amount to be billed data capture
field 110. The total order amount is automatically calculated and
captured in total order amount data capture field 105, while the amount
left to allocate is automatically calculated and captured in amount left to
allocate data capture field 107. (Cameron, col. 11, l. 55 – col. 12, l. 6.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
14. If a single payment method is chosen in Cameron’s invention, one
hundred percent (100%) of the order total is automatically allocated to
that payment method. If more than one payment method is selected, the
customer must choose how to allocate their payment methods. A
recalculate button 101 is provided on billing window 100 which, when
selected, calculates the dollar amount to be billed to each payment
method based on the dollar amounts and percentages captured for each
payment method. If the allocation is incomplete, the total amount of the
order will be applied to the first payment method, less any coupon or gift
certificate. (Cameron, col. 12, ll. 7-16.)
15. The Examiner’s findings that the step of transmitting the cost payment
to the financial institution is obvious and old to the card reader art and is
accomplished in Cameron is not disputed by the Appellant.
16. The Examiner’s findings that Cameron discloses selecting a non-zero
portion of a charge to be allocated between two credit cards, a credit
card and a stored value instrument, or between two stored value
instruments is not disputed by the Appellant.
Melchione
11

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

17. Melchione is directed towards a sales and service support system and
method, and in particular, to an electronic sales and service support
system and method for assisting customer service and identifying sales
targets, distributing sales leads, enhancing sales tools, and tracking
performance of sales and sales personnel. (Melchione, col. 1, ll. 26-31.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
18. Melchione states that its electronic sales and service support system is
preferably capable of interfacing with a system for opening a single
account that includes a full range of financial components. Thus, the
integrated system of Melchione’s invention also preferably includes a
system for opening an account, preferably in a single session. The
system is preferably in communication with the central database,
micromarketing centers, central customer information systems and
branch systems of the present invention so that data can pass between
these systems where legal and appropriate. (Melchione, col. 7, ll. 30-
40.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Construction
The general rule is that terms in the claim are to be given their ordinary and
accustomed meaning. Johnson Worldwide Assocs. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985,
989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the USPTO, claims are
construed giving their broadest reasonable interpretation.
[T]he Board is required to use a different standard for construing
claims than that used by district courts. We have held that it is
erroneous for the Board to “appl[y] the mode of claim interpretation
that is used by courts in litigation, when interpreting the claims of
12

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

issued patents in connection with determinations of infringement and
validity.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir.
1989); accord In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It would be inconsistent with the role assigned to
the PTO in issuing a patent to require it to interpret claims in the same
manner as judges who, post-issuance, operate under the assumption
the patent is valid.”). Instead, as we explained above, the PTO is
obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation
during examination.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827,
1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Obviousness
A claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it and the prior
art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) (2000); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14, (1966)). In Graham,
the Court held that that the obviousness analysis begins with several basic factual
inquiries: “[(1)] the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; [(2)]
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and
[(3)] the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.” 383 U.S. at 17. After
ascertaining these facts, the obviousness of the invention is then determined
“against th[e] background” of the Graham factors. Id. at 17-18.
The Supreme Court has provided guidelines for determining obviousness based
on the Graham factors. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d
1385 (2007). “[a] combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Id at
1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. “When a work is available in one field of endeavor,
13

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the
same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a
predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d
at 1396. For the same reason, “if a technique has been used to improve one device,
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond that person’s skill.” Id. “Often, it will be necessary for a
court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands
known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to
determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. To facilitate review, this analysis should
be made explicit. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336
(Fed. Cir.2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). As
our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ.” Id. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. “[T]he analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at
1396. “The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception
of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the
importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. The
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
14

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against limiting
the analysis in this way. In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of
obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market
demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends.” Id. “Under the
correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the
elements in the manner claimed.” Id at 1732, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Automation of a Known Process
It is generally obvious to automate a known manual procedure or mechanical
device. Our reviewing court stated in Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious to combine an old electromechanical device
with electronic circuitry “to update it using modern electronic components in order
to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as decreased
size, increased reliability, simplified operation, and reduced cost. . . . The
combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention . . . using newer
technology that is commonly available and understood in the art.” Id at 1163, 82
USPQ2d 1691.

15

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

ANALYSIS 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Blossom, Cameron,
and Melchione.
We note that the Appellant argues these claims as a group. Accordingly, we
select claim 1 as representative of the group.
Appellant’s invention is the automated allocation of a purchase payment across
multiple accounts linked to a single card, or instrument, where one account is for
credit and the other account for a stored-value, and where the accounts were linked
to the instrument contemporaneously. The Examiner applied Blossom to show the
features of a multiple account card, Cameron to show automated allocation among
accounts, and Melchione for the suggestion of contemporaneous linking.
We initially note that, as anyone who has received stored-value cards in the
form of gift cards has experienced, at some point, the balance in the stored-value
account is not going to be sufficient to cover a purchase and at that point the
purchaser will allocate non-zero amounts to both the stored-value account and to a
credit card or cash. The Appellant’s invention is thus no more than linking the two
accounts on a single card and automating the allocation that occurs in such a
frequently experienced purchase. Automation of a known manual process, to gain
the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as decreased size,
increased reliability, simplified operation, and reduced cost, that is no more than
the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is
commonly available and understood in the art is obvious to a person of ordinary
skill (see Leapfrog, supra).
The Appellant initially argues the references piecemeal, contending that each
of Blossom and Cameron fails to teach what is taught by the other. Thus, the
16

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

Appellant contends that Blossom doesn’t describe allocation of payment across
multiple non-zero amounts, and that Cameron doesn’t describe a point of sale
terminal or multiple account card. However, Cameron does describe allocation of
payment across multiple non-zero amounts (FF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
13-14), and Blossom does describe
a point of sale terminal and a multiple account card (FF 05-10), and the Appellant
does not dispute this (FF 11, 15, and 16). Thus, the combined art applied by the
Examiner describes these claim limitations and these arguments by the Appellant
are unpersuasive.
The Appellant next contends that it is improper to combine the teachings of
Blossom and Cameron. Their initial contention is that the Examiner’s findings of
motivation to combine the two are improper. The Examiner found that one of
ordinary skill would have combined them to include receiving at the POS terminal
a response in the form of an elective distribution feature of allocating payments
between stored value gift certificate and credit card to limit the use of the credit
cards and their attendant high rates of interest.
We agree with the Examiner, and also repeat our above purchase scenario in
which the stored-value balance is insufficient to cover a purchase, requiring an
allocation between the stored-value account and the credit account, as an additional
motivation to combine purchase allocation with the use of stored-value accounts
and credit accounts. In any event, a combination of familiar elements, such as
multiple use cards and payment allocation, according to known methods is likely to
be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see KSR, supra).
Thus, not only does the Examiner provide a rational motivation that one of
ordinary skill would have known to combine Blossom and Cameron, the
17

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

combination of their clearly expressed elements, doing no more than yield
predictable results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
As to the Appellant’s contention that this motivation is a user’s motivation and
not a designer’s, we find that a designer of sales systems such as those in Blossom
and Cameron would have considered how a user would use these systems.
As to the Appellant’s argument that one of ordinary skill would not have
applied Cameron’s graphical interface for remote order entry to a point of sale
device, we find that entering an order with a credit card payment, as in Cameron, is
entering a sale. How local or remote the terminal is has nothing to do with the
technology, only with the placement of the terminal. Thus one of ordinary skill
would have immediately envisaged the use of any credit, debit, or gift card, such as
Blossom’s, upon reading Cameron’s discussion of entering such cards.
Finally, as to the claim limitation regarding the stored-value account and the
credit account being linked substantially contemporaneously with issuance of the
instrument to the customer, we make the following findings:
1) Any card linking two such accounts is functionally equivalent
irrespective of the timing of when the linking occurred, so long as the
linking occurred in the past, and therefore little patentable weight is
afforded to the limitation regarding contemporaneous linking;
2) The card itself is a physical link between itself and the two accounts, and
such linkage is created when the accounts are linked to the card, which is
generally contemporaneous with the issuance of the card.
18

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

3) Melchione suggests that all operations associated with opening an
account that has multiple financial components be done in a single
session.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Thus, we find that this limitation, that the stored-value account and the credit
account was linked substantially contemporaneously with issuance of the
instrument to the customer, has little patentable weight, was known to be
functionally equivalent to similar linking at any time prior to the use of the card,
would have generally occurred at the time of card issuance, and was suggested by
Melchione to those of ordinary skill.
Thus, we find the Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive, and that the Examiner
has shown that the combination of Blossom, Cameron, and Melchione describe all
of the claimed subject matter and that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to have combined their teachings to form the claimed
invention.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Examiner has shown that the combination of Blossom, Cameron, and
Melchione describe all of the claimed subject matter and that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined their teachings at
the time the invention was made to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Blossom, Cameron, and Melchione.

19

Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925

DECISION 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
To summarize, our decision is as follows:
• The rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Blossom, Cameron, and Melchione is sustained.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

jlb

TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP
TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER
EIGHTH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-3834
20