Ex Parte ShakkarwarDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 12, 201612887347 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/887,347 09/21/2010 107456 7590 05/16/2016 Artegis Law Group, LLP John Carey 7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104 Houston, TX 77095 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Rajesh G. Shakkarwar 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. VERI/0007.Pl 2342 EXAMINER HOLLY, JOHN H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3696 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/16/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): algdocketing@artegislaw.com kcruz@artegislaw.com mmccauley@artegislaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAJESH G. SHAKKAR WAR Appeal2013-009224 Application 12/887,347 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. PETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges. PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Rajesh G. Shakkarwar (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1--41, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellant invented distributed payment products. Specification para. 2. 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed February 4, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 8, Appeal2013-009224 Application 12/887,347 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 1. A computer-implemented method for generating and distributing a plurality of financial child products to a group of recipients that can then be used for one or more payment transactions by each recipient, the method comprising: [ 1 ] receiving, by a payment processing platform entity that is separate and distinct from a financial institution entity, a selection of a core account that provides financial backing for the plurality of financial child products and is managed by the financial institution entity; [2] receiving, by the payment processing platform entity, a list of recipients that defines the group of recipients to which the financial child products are distributed; [3] generating, via a processor included in the payment processing platform entity, the plurality of financial child products, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 8, 2013), and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed August 31, 2012). 2 Appeal2013-009224 Application 12/887,347 and wherein each financial child product is structured with one or more control parameters stored in one or more computer memories that define user restrictions for the financial child product; [ 4] causing one or more of the financial child products to be distributed to at least one recipient included in the list of recipients, wherein the payment processing platform entity is configured to receive, from a merchant entity, a first payment transaction that is initiated using a first financial child product and, in response, the payment processing platform entity generates a second payment transaction for output to the financial institution entity that includes information specific to the core account. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Gould US 2001/0001856 Al Postrel US 2006/0064320 Al Peyret US 2007/0017976 Al Flitcroft US 2009/0070260 Al May 24, 2001 Mar. 23, 2006 Jan.25,2007 Mar. 12, 2009 Claims 1-9, 19-27, and 37--41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Flitcroft, Postrel, and Gould. Claims 10-18 and 28-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Flitcroft, Postrel, Gould, and Peyret. 3 Appeal2013-009224 Application 12/887,347 ISSUES The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether the art describes the final clause of limitation [ 4] regarding a second transaction with information specific to the core account in response to a transaction from a child account. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to the Prior Art Flitcroft 01. Flitcroft is directed to a credit card system. Flitcroft para. 3. 02. Flitcroft describes allocating one or more limited use credit card numbers to a customer. Flitcroft para. 72. 03. Flitcroft' s limited use credit card is issued by a limited use credit card issuer and is associated with a master account number. Flitcroft para. 24. 04. Flitcroft describes distributing the limited use credit cards from a card dispenser or courier. Flitcroft para. 70, 104. Postrel 05. Postrel is directed to medical and related management and monitoring services, and in particular to a centralized method and system for managing and monitoring healthcare services, 4 Appeal2013-009224 Application 12/887,347 payments, costs, risks, quality control, and performance measurement. Postrel para. 2. 06. Postrel' s approval and payment processes operate over a separate network that may piggyback the existing credit card infrastructure and operate in a similar manner, wherein parties request and obtain approval for health transactions in the same manner that banks interoperate over the credit card network. A separate information network, such as the Internet, could also be utilized to interconnect the various entities to provide information flows therebetween, such as when a patient logs onto the system to access his medical records. In another embodiment, a single network such as the Internet may be used to accomplish all functionality if desired. Postrel para. 59. Gould 07. Gould is directed to financial instruments in the form of prepaid cards where an anonymous user may acquire a cash equivalent card for subsequent use toward the purchase of goods and services from merchants. Gould para. 1. 08. Gould's user activates the cash-equivalent card for subsequent use such that a purchase transaction may be executed with a merchant for a purchase item having a corresponding purchase amount. In the purchase transaction, the user presents the cash- equivalent card to the merchant. The merchant, utilizing a purchase authorization system associated with a generally accepted credit card, requests authorization from the information- 5 Appeal2013-009224 Application 12/887,347 processing computer that the purchase transaction amount is not greater than the remaining card value stored in the storage device. The information-processing computer then reduces the value stored in the storage device by the purchase transaction amount if the authorization is successful and the transaction is consummated. Gould para. 11. 09. Gould's cards are cash equivalent cards meaning that they may be used anywhere that a merchant will accept the card toward payment of any good or service sold. Already activated cash equivalent cards may be used with this system where the cards must be stored in a secured area to prevent theft. The card can be assigned a value at the point of purchase, by contacting the cash equivalent server and setting the account balance corresponding to the card at the value specified. Gould para. 32. ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the art fails to describe the final clause of limitation [ 4] regarding a second transaction with information specific to the core account in response to a transaction from a child account. App. Br. 10. The Examiner cites Gould paras. 29 and 51 as describing this. Final Act. 6; Ans. 17. These paragraphs describe the child card piggy backing the same routing structure as the core account, but do not describe sending information specific to the core account. 6 Appeal2013-009224 Application 12/887,347 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1-9, 19-27, and 37--41under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Flitcroft, Postrel, and Gould is improper. The rejection of claims 10-18 and 28-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Flitcroft, Postrel, Gould, and Peyret is improper. DECISION The rejections of claims 1--41 are reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation