Ex Parte Nathans et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 16, 2011

09924971 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 16, 2011)

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.
09/924,971 08/09/2001 Michael G. Nathans 9520-002-64 3150
7590 02/17/2011
Franklin B. Levin, Esq.
Senior Vice President & General Counsel
Pay Rent, Built Credit, Inc.
100 Canal Pointe Blvd.,Suite 208
Princeton, NJ 08540
EXAMINER
TINKLER, MURIEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3691
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL G. NATHANS and
MARCIA A. GOLDSTEIN-NATHANS
____________

Appeal 2009-013080
Application 09/924,971
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and ANTON W.
FETTING, 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 2009-013080
Application 09/924,971

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-8 and 18-202.
We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6
(2002).
The claimed invention is generally directed to the field of credit
reporting and more particularly to the field of “‘housing credit’” (defined as
residential lease and mortgage) payment processing, data collection
management, and reporting (Spec. 1:16-18). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
further illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A system for collecting and distributing credit
information comprising:
a repository database having stored therein residential
housing credit payment terms pertaining to a plurality of
consumers and a plurality of payees, the payment terms
including an amount due and a date on which the amount is
due;
a repository management computer connected to the
repository database, the repository management computer being
configured to input residential housing credit payment data
pertaining to a plurality of consumers and a plurality of payees
from a payment processor computer and to store the residential
housing credit payment data in the repository, the residential
housing credit payment data including an amount paid and a
date on which the amount was paid, the repository management
computer being further configured to compare the residential
housing credit payment terms and the residential housing credit
payment data and to release credit information indicating a
timeliness of payments from the repository database for a
particular consumer to a third party upon receiving a request
from the third party and a corresponding authorization from the
particular consumer.

2 Claims 9-17 are withdrawn from consideration (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2009-013080
Application 09/924,971

3
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Walker (US Pat. 6,088,686, iss. Jul. 11, 2000)
in view of Weatherly (US Pat. 6,049,784, iss. Apr. 11, 2000); claims 2 and 3
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walker in view
of Weatherly and DeFrancesco (US Pat. 6,587,841 B1, iss. Jul. 1, 2003);
claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Walker in view of Weatherly, DeFrancesco, and Fletcher (US Pat.
6,112,190, iss. Aug. 29, 2000); and claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Walker in view of Weatherly and Johnson (US
Pat. 6,529,885 B1, iss. Mar. 4, 2003).
We AFFIRM.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Walker and
Weatherly renders obvious the subject matter of independent claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Walker,
Weatherly, DeFrancesco, and Fletcher renders obvious the subject matter of
dependent claim 7?

FINDINGS OF FACT
Walker
Walker discloses an online real-time credit and liability approval
process by a financial institution (Abstr.).
The approval process takes into consideration an applicant’s good
credit experience, monthly income and monthly debt payments
Appeal 2009-013080
Application 09/924,971

4
(incorporating estimated monthly payments associated with the newly
requested debt) (col. 8, ll. 28-34).
This process primarily uses monthly credit bureau information,
including mortgage payments (col. 8, ll. 34-36).

Weatherly
Weatherly discloses a financial institution managing rent payments in
a lease agreement between a landlord and tenant (col. 1, ll. 45-58; col. 2, ll.
20-30).
The tenant authorizes the financial institution to review their history
(col. 4, ll. 25-28).

Fletcher
Fletcher discloses that it is known to use an evidence tree analysis
method with weights for different nodes and factors in the evidence tree (col.
3, ll. 1-3).

ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Walker and Weatherly renders obvious the subject matter of
independent claim 1 (App. Br. 3-7; Reply Br. 2). Appellants assert that
Walker only discloses future mortgage payment data, and not past payment
data, as recited in independent claim (App. Br. 4). Appellants also assert
that neither Walker nor Weatherly disclose the reporting of payment data or
authorization of the release of credit information to any third party (App. Br.
Appeal 2009-013080
Application 09/924,971

5
5-6; Reply Br. 2). Appellants further assert that the Examiner has not set
forth any rationale for combining Walker and Weatherly (App. Br. 6-7). We
adopt the Examiner’s reasoning on points 1-5, as set forth on pages 10-12 of
the Examiner’s Answer. Consumer and payee information is stored on a
credit bureau database, corresponding to the recited repository
database/computer, in Walker. Such information includes past mortgage
payments (col. 8, ll. 34-36). This information is provided to a third party,
the financial institution, during the approval process. Weatherly is cited for
showing that the tenant, corresponding to the recited consumer, may
authorize the credit bureau to release such information to the financial
institution. We are not persuaded of any error in the Examiner’s reasoning.

Dependent Claim 7
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Walker, Weatherly, DeFrancesco, and Fletcher renders
obvious the subject matter of dependent claim 7 (App. Br. 7-8). Appellants
assert that “Fletcher is not weighting credit data from different types of
loans, but rather weighting different factors such as business income…”
(App. Br. 8). However, Fletcher is merely cited for showing that weighting
of factors is known, while Walker is cited for disclosing the factors to be
weighted (i.e., different types of loans) (Exam’r’s Ans. 7, 9). See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“one cannot show non-obviousness
by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based
on combinations of references”). Appellants also assert that “weighting
housing credit data more heavily than others … is unsupported by any
citation to any reference with such a teaching” (App. Br. 8). However, we
Appeal 2009-013080
Application 09/924,971

6
agree with the Examiner that in view of the weighting aspect disclosed in
Fletcher, “housing credit data should be more heavily weighted than retail
data because the database is for use in housing credit data” (Exam’r’s Ans.
9), which is logical as Weatherly is cited for disclosing such a housing credit
database (Exam’r’s Ans. 5). Accordingly, we will also sustain this rejection.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED

hh

Franklin B. Levin, Esq.
Senior Vice President & General Counsel
Pay Rent, Built Credit, Inc.
100 Canal Pointe Blvd., Suite 208
Princeton, NJ 08540