Ex Parte Tritz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

12195231 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/195,231 08/20/2008
23460 7590 02/18/2016
LEYDIG VOIT & MA YER, LTD
TWO PRUDENTIAL PLAZA, SUITE 4900
180 NORTH STETSON A VENUE
CHICAGO, IL 60601-6731
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joe TRITZ
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.
703276 8096
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, GREGORY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 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):
Chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOE TRITZ, KRISTINA SMITH, and JASON SCHILLING
Appeal2013-007910 1
Application 12/195,231 2
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 26-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed
February 11, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed March 11,
2013) and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed January 3, 2012).
2 Appellants identify American International Group, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2013-007910
Application 12/195,231
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "generally relates to a method and
system for determining rates for insurance. More particularly, the invention
relates to a method and system for determining base insurance rates using
multiple risk parameters and factors" (Spec. i-f 2).
Claim 26, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is the
only independent claim and is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
26. A method for determining a premium rate for a
travel insurance product including at least one coverage type
selected from a set of coverage types, the method comprising:
[(a)] associating at least one parameter with each
coverage type;
[ (b)] defining at least two bands for each parameter;
[ ( c)] using a computer to organize seed factor data,
premium base rate data, and loss data into the bands of each
parameter for each coverage type, the data organized in the form
of arrays in a database;
[ ( d)] using a computer to determine final factor
relativities for each parameter band through a recursive
calculation process to iteratively adjust each factor relativity,
starting from the seed factor for each respective parameter band,
until the iteratively-adjusted factor is within a predetermined
threshold of the immediately-preceding value for the factor
relativity so that the final factor relativity for each parameter
band is set equal to the respective iteratively-adjusted factor
within the threshold;
[ ( e)] receiving a selection of at least one coverage type
for inclusion in the travel insurance product;
[(t)] receiving data from a consumer sufficient to place
the consumer in each associated parameter band associated with
each coverage type selected;
2
Appeal2013-007910
Application 12/195,231
[ (g)] using a computer to calculate a coverage type
premium rate for each coverage type selected by determining the
product of the premium base rate and each associated final factor
relativity according to the parameter band in which the consumer
is placed;
[(h)] determining a travel insurance product premium
rate by adding each coverage type premium rate for each
coverage type selected together.
REJECTIONS
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sholom Feldblum and J. Eric Brosius, The Minimum Bias
Procedure-A Practitioner's Guide (January 2002) (hereinafter
"Feldblum") and Monk (US 2004/0138928 Al, pub. July 15, 2004).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Feldblum, Monk, and Official Notice.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Feldblum; Monk; and Silverbrook (US 2006/0004602 Al;
pub. Jan. 5, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 26 and dependent claim 27
In rejecting claim 26 as obvious over the combination of Feldblum
and Monk, the Examiner cites Feldblum as disclosing a method for
determining a premium rate for an insurance product comprising the steps in
limitations (a) through ( e) and (g), as recited in claim 26 (Final Act. 4--5).
However, the Examiner acknowledges that Feldblum does not disclose "a
travel insurance product including at least one coverage type selected from a
set of coverage types," as recited in the preamble of claim 26; "the data
3
Appeal2013-007910
Application 12/195,231
organized in the form of arrays in a database," as recited in limitation ( c) of
claim 26; or the method steps recited in limitations (t) and (h) (id. at 5-6).
And the Examiner cites Monk to cure the deficiencies of Feldblum (id.).
In their Appeal Brief, Appellants identify the elements of claim 26
that the Examiner admits are not disclosed in Feldblum, and Appellants
summarily assert, without further explanation, "[i]t is respectfully submitted
that Monk fails to overcome these deficiencies" (Br. 5).
Appellants' assertion is not persuasive of Examiner error at least
because it does not rise to the level of a substantive argument for
patentability. Cf In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding
that the Board reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(vii) as
requiring "more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art").
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner concludes that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of Applicant's invention to combine the teachings
ofFeldblum and Monk; one would have been motivated to do so,
in order to provide travel insurance via a distributed computing
network using a well-known method in the insurance industry to
ascertain the value and/or cost of an insurance policy (see Monk
i-10027).
Final Act. 6. Appellants assert that "[ t ]he Office has failed to provide any
credible reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
modified the teachings of Feldblum to arrive at the method recited in
claim 26" (Br. 5). But Appellants do not explain why the motivation set
forth by the Examiner is insufficient or otherwise unreasonable.
4
Appeal2013-007910
Application 12/195,231
We are not persuaded on the present record that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 26 as unpatentable over the combination of Feldblum and
Monk. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 27, which is not argued separately except based
on its dependence on claim 26 (Br. 5---6).
Dependent claim 28
Claim 28 depends from claim 26, and recites that the coverage types
comprise "Trip Cancellation coverage, Trip Interruption coverage, Trip
Delay coverage, Medical coverage, Evacuation Assistance coverage, and
Baggage Delay coverage." In rejecting claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
the Examiner acknowledges that neither Feldblum nor Monk discloses trip
interruption coverage, trip delay coverage, or evacuation assistance coverage
(Final Act. 6). And the Examiner takes Official Notice that "Trip
Interruption coverage, Trip Delay coverage and Evacuation Assistance
coverage are very common risks that are covered by travel insurance" (id.
at 7 (citing a sample of the most common risks that are covered by travel
insurance per Wikipedia)).
Appellants argue that the Examiner's taking of Official Notice is
inappropriate, and more particularly, that the uncited reference to Wikipedia
is not a sufficient basis for supporting the taking of Official Notice (Br. 6-7).
Responding to Appellants' argument in the Response to Argument
section of the Answer, the Examiner asserts, as support for the taking of
Official Notice, that an article, "'You've got your market covered, but do
you?' published in Business Traveller Asia-Pacific in November 2002"
discloses that "AIG Assist Executive Annual Travel Protection offers, for
5
Appeal2013-007910
Application 12/195,231
example, (1) evacuation, (2) journey interruption, (3) journey cancellation,
and (4) delay coverage" (Ans. 5).
Appellants do not present any argument in their Appeal Brief that this
article provides insufficient support for the taking of Official Notice. And
Appellants did not file a Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded on the present record that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 28 as obvious over the combination of Feldblum, Monk, and
Official Notice. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent claims 29 and 30
Appellants do not present any arguments in support of the
patentability of claims 29 and 30 except to argue that the claims are
allowable based on their dependence on claim 26 (Br. 7-8).
We are not persuaded for the reasons set forth above that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103(a) of claims 29 and 30.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6