Ex Parte Nelms

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 14, 2013

10700686 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID W. NELMS
____________

Appeal 2011-008229
Application 10/700,686
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL W. KIM, and JAMES A.
TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-008229
Application 10/700,686

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-5, 8-13, 16 and
171. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates generally to consumer rebate systems and more
particularly to a rate structure for cash value based consumer rebate or award
systems (Spec., para. [0001]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A system for determining an award amount
accrued to a consumer due to at least one transaction, the
transaction involving the consumer’s use of a financial
alternative to currency to purchase goods or services, the
system comprising:
a database containing a data record of the transaction and
an account record for the consumer, the account record
including a dollar-value sum which includes the transaction
amount; and
a computing device coupled to the database for accessing
at least one of the records and for calculating the award amount,
from either the dollar-value sum or the transaction amount, by
applying thereto an award formula comprising a selected award
rate from an inverted tier structure comprising
a first tier corresponding to a first value range of
goods or services purchased and providing a first award
rate and
a second tier corresponding to a second value
range of goods or services purchased and providing a
second award rate,
wherein the minimum of the second value range is higher
than the maximum of the first value range and the second award

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed September 20, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February
28, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 27, 2010).
App
App

unpa
obvi
[a] tr
finan
“calc
trans
Br. 4
creat
Colu
an ou
perc
eal 2011-0
lication 10
rate is lo
being sto

Claims 1
tentable o
We REV
We are p
ous “[an] a
ansaction
cial altern
ulating [a
action am
-6). Indep
ed the foll
mns (1) an
tstanding
entage pai
08229
/700,686
wer than t
red in the
-5, 8-13,
ver Hucal
ERSE.
ersuaded
ccount rec
amount,”
ative to cu
n] award a
ount,” as r
endent cla
owing cha
d (3) are n
balance eq
d off in co
he first aw
computin
THE R
16 and 17
(US 5,933
AN
the Exami
ord includ
“the transa
rrency to
mount, fro
ecited in in
im 10 rec
rt on page
umbers ta
ual to an
lumn (1), a
3
ard rate,
g device.
EJECTIO
are rejecte
,817, iss. A
ALYSIS
ner erred i
ing a doll
ction invo
purchase g
m either t
dependen
ites a simi
10 of the
ken from
initial bala
nd colum
the inverte
N
d under 35
ug. 3, 19
n asserting
ar-value su
lving the c
oods or se
he dollar-v
t claim 1 (
lar aspect.
Examiner
Table 1 of
nce of $2,
ns (4) and
d tier stru
U.S.C. §
99).
that Huca
m which
onsumer’
rvices,” an
alue sum
App. Br. 3
The Exam
’s Answer
Hucal, co
000 minus
(5) are the
cture
103(a) as
l renders
includes
s use of a
d
or the
-5; Reply
iner
:

lumn (2) i
the
incentive

s

Appeal 2011-008229
Application 10/700,686

4
rates and incentive cash back calculated by the Examiner as being provided
to the consumer in the form of lower interest payments based on the
outstanding balance. The Examiner asserts that column (2) corresponds to
the recited “account record including a dollar-value sum which includes [a]
transaction amount,” and that column (5) corresponds to the recited award
amount (Ans. 10-11). However, the final outstanding balance in column (2)
is not “[a] transaction [amount] involving the consumer’s use of a financial
alternative to currency to purchase goods or services,” as recited in
independent claim 1. The initial balance of $2,000 is a sum of previous
transactions, and thus could correspond to a transaction amount. However,
the initial balance of $2,000 is not used to calculate the incentives set forth
in columns (4) and (5). The payoff amount in column (1) could also
correspond to a transaction amount. However, again, the payoff amount is
not used to calculate the incentives set forth in columns (4) and (5). The
final outstanding balance in column (2) is calculated using the transaction
amount in column (1), but is not itself “[a] transaction [amount] involving
the consumer’s use of a financial alternative to currency to purchase goods
or services,” as recited in independent claim 1.
For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejections of
independent claim 10, and dependent claims 2-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 16 and 17.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 8-13, 16 and 17 is
REVERSED.

REVERSED

Appeal 2011-008229
Application 10/700,686

5
mls