Ex Parte Thomas

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2016

12852272 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/852,272 08/06/2010 Tracey R. Thomas
35690 7590 02/26/2016
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
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.
6657-32806 3462
EXAMINER
APPLE, KIRSTEN SACHWITZ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TRACEY R. THOMAS
Appeal2013-009546
Application 12/852,272
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Final
rejection of claims 11, 12, 14, and 16-29, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2013-009546
Application 12/852,272
THE INVENTION
The Appellant's claimed invention is directed to determining a user's
income, debt, and goals in determining savings amounts (Spec. para. 14).
Claim 11, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
11. A method comprising:
a first computer system sending to a second computer system a
request for social network information associated with a user;
the first computer system receiving the social network
information in response to the request; and
the first computer system automatically determining a savings
amount based on the social network information and personal
financial information for the user.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review 1:
1. Claims 11, 14, 16-24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over O'Connor (US 2010/0241559 Al, pub.
Sept. 23, 2010) and Crane (US 7,313,543 Bl, iss. Dec. 25, 2007).
2. Claims 12, 25, and 29, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O'Connor, Crane, and Miller (Piggy Bank 101: It pays to
teach kids money-handling early, Final ed. 1, San Francisco Chronicle
(Dec. 29, 2000).
1 Claims 1-10 and 11-19 were provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 and 1-24 of copending
Application No. 12/852,122 respectively in the Final Rejection. The
Appellant stated that a terminal disclaimer has been filed and the Answer no
longer contains these provisional rejections, so they are considered
withdrawn.
2
Appeal2013-009546
Application 12/852,272
FINDfNGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 2
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 11 is improper
because the cited prior art fails to disclose the claim limitations for "a
request for social network information associated with a user" and for
"automatically determining a savings amount based on the social network
information and personal financial information for the user." (Appeal
Br. 13-20; see also Reply Br. 3, 4) (emphasis omitted).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitations are found in O'Connor at Figure 6 and paragraphs 14--16, 20, and
23-26; and Crane at col. 2, lines 10-35. (Final Act. 4, 5; see also Ans. 3, 4).
We agree with the Examiner. The argued claim limitation for "a
request for social network information associated with a user" is shown by
O'Connor in Figure 6 in which the information about friends of the user are
displayed, as well as their comments. O'Connor at paragraphs 14--19 also
discloses the "online social network" of the user meeting the argued claim
limitation. The argued claim limitation for "automatically determining a
savings amount based on the social network information and personal
financial information for the user" is disclosed by O'Connor at Figure 6 and
paragraph 24. In Figure 6 the savings towards a 529 plan are disclosed, as
2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2013-009546
Application 12/852,272
well as the progress towards that savings and the bank's point of view. In
O'Connor at paragraph 25 it is disclosed that the goals and progress of the
group may be displayed, and an example is given for a charitable goal in a
financial social network account. Note that in 0 'Connor at paragraph 46 it
is disclosed that the second user may also contribute to the financial goal.
These citations to O'Connor do disclose the savings amount determined
based on the social network information and personal financial information
for the user.
As the above argued claim limitations have been shown in the prior
art, the rejection of claim 11 is sustained. The same arguments have been
presented for the remaining claims and the rejection of those claims is
sustained for the same reasons given above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 11, 12, 14, and 16-29 is sustained.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4