11205999 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 28, 2011)

Ex Parte Simon

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 28, 2011

11205999 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL P. SIMON ____________ Appeal 2010-001351 Application 11/205,999 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, 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 2010-001351 Application 11/205,999 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6 (2002). The claimed invention is directed to systems and methods for receipt payment and delivery of codes for a system which disables equipment in response to the failure of a user to enter a code that corresponds with a stored code in the vehicle (Spec., para. [0002]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method for obtaining a code and preventing disablement of a device comprising the steps of: assigning a contract identification code associated with a loan contract; a payment center receiving a loan payment; forwarding the payment from the payment center to a finance company, wherein the finance company has an interest in the device; a code delivery computer determining whether the finance company has received the payment; the code delivery computer determining a previous code released for the device; releasing a new code subsequent to the previous code released for the device if the code delivery computer determines that the finance company has received the payment; the code delivery computer receiving the associated contract identification code from a user via telephony, an internet link, or an email; the code delivery computer providing the new code directly to the user via telephony, an internet link, or an email, wherein the new code is provided to the user independent of the payment center; the device receiving the code from the user, thereby preventing disablement of the device. Appeal 2010-001351 Application 11/205,999 3 Claims 1-5 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Simon (US Pub. 2002/0040343 A1, pub. Apr. 4, 2002) in view of Lazerson (US Pub. 2003/0036995 A1, pub. Feb. 20, 2003) and Downs (US Pat. 6,226,618 B1, iss. May 1, 2001); claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Simon in view of Lazerson, Downs, and Sugar (US Pub. 2002/0029164 A1, pub. Mar. 7, 2002); claims 10-12 and 14-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Simon in view of Downs; and claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Simon in view of Downs and Sugar. We AFFIRM. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Simon, Lazerson, and Downs renders obvious the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 10? FINDINGS OF FACT We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact, as set forth on pages 10-22 of the Examiner’s Answer. ANALYSIS We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination of Simon, Lazerson, and Downs renders obvious the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 10 (App. Br. 10-16). We agree with and adopt the analysis set forth on pages 10-22 of the Examiner’s Answer. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that it would be advantageous to Appeal 2010-001351 Application 11/205,999 4 modify Simon such that a user could make a payment to one entity over the Internet, and then receive the code from another entity also over the Internet, as set forth in Downs (Exam’r’s Ans. 15-16). Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claims 1 and 10. As Appellants have not set forth additional arguments concerning the rejections of dependent claims 2-9 and 11-20, we also sustain those rejections. 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 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC POST OFFICE BOX 1404 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404