Ex Parte Prorock

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 6, 2012

11021945 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THOMAS J. PROROCK
____________

Appeal 2010-011866
Application 11/021,945
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-011866
Application 11/021,945

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-10 and 20-24.
We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6
(2002).
The claimed invention is directed to ensuring maintenance of
individual government benefits in a retail environment (Spec., para. [001]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method to ensure maintenance of individual
government benefits in a retail environment, the method
comprising:
identifying an individual shopper with an associated level
of available benefits during a shopping session;
tracking purchases relative to predetermined criteria,
including the associated level of available benefits; and
scheduling a next appointment during the shopping
session for the individual shopper with an agency providing the
government benefits based on the tracking, wherein a potential
lapse in benefits is avoided.

Claims 1-10 and 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brown (US 2006/0074784 A1, pub. Apr. 6, 2006) in view
of Pitroda (US 2007/0198432 A1, pub. Aug. 23, 2007).
We REVERSE.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Brown
FF1. Brown discloses financial credit cards or debit cards linked to a
benefits account for a government funded program, such as WIC (Women,
Infants, Children) or “food stamps” (para. [0008]).
Appeal 2010-011866
Application 11/021,945

3
FF2. Benefits network 116 and DBMS 120 authorize purchases
made by the beneficiary using card 150 at POS terminal 102 ([0028]).

Pitroda
FF3. Pitroda discloses a ticketing service and system which may be
used for any ticket-related service including reservation requests, reservation
changes, travel itinerary tracking and revisions, and scheduling (para.
[0436]).
FF4. Pitroda further discloses alerts/reminders area 4414 which may
contain alerts and/or reminders that may be associated with the type of
account and/or with the type of good and/or service that may be associated
with the account. For example and without limitation, these alerts and/or
reminders may comprise a renewal reminder and a low balance alert (para.
[0567]).

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination
of Brown and Pitroda renders obvious independent claim 11 (App. Br. 3-6).
The Examiner asserts that a combination of Brown and Pitroda renders
obvious “scheduling a next appointment during the shopping session for the
individual shopper with an agency providing the government benefits based
on the tracking,” as recited in independent claim 1 (Exam’r’s Ans. 9-12).
Specifically, the Examiner cites Brown for disclosing tracking during the
shopping session (FF1, FF2), while citing Pitroda for disclosing scheduling

1 We choose independent claim 1 as representative of independent claims 1
and 20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2010-011866
Application 11/021,945

4
the next appointment (Exam’r’s Ans. 3-4, 9-10). As an initial matter, the
scheduling aspect cited by the Examiner in Pitroda is in relation to a
ticketing service (FF3), and so it is unclear what a “next appointment” would
constitute in such a context. Moreover, independent claim 1 recites that the
“scheduling a next appointment” occurs “during the shopping session”
(emphasis added). The Examiner has not addressed this temporal aspect.
The Examiner has cited Pitroda for disclosing renewal reminders and low
balance alerts (FF4), which arguably could be sent during the shopping
session. However, even this combination, which was not explicitly set forth
by the Examiner, would not address the scheduling of the next appointment.
By placing portions of paragraphs [0436] and [0567] of Pitroda next to each
other on page 10 of the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner may be
attempting to assert that one could schedule a next appointment via renewal
reminders and low balance alerts. However, the Examiner has not set forth
how or why one of ordinary skill would combine a ticket-related scheduling
with renewal reminders and low balance alerts, and even there, the Examiner
still has not set forth how all of this would occur “during the shopping
session,” as recited in independent claim 1.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10 and 20-24 is
REVERSED.
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).

Appeal 2010-011866
Application 11/021,945

5
REVERSED
:

mls