Ex Parte BeeriDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 24, 201612729434 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 121729,434 69054 7590 RECHES PA TENTS 211 North Union St. Suite 100 FILING DATE 03/23/2010 06/28/2016 Alexandria, VA 22314 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Zohar Beeri 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. 8113-US 7207 EXAMINER OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3629 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2016 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): OREN@I-P.CO.IL RECHES0@012.NET.IL MAIL@I-P.CO.IL PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ZOHAR BEERI Appeal2014-002142 Application 12/729,434 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A computer program product that comprises a non transient computer readable medium that stores instructions for: monitoring an offer to enter a transaction, wherein the offer is being distributed over a social networking community by a referring entity; wherein members of the social networking community interact through a network; Appeal2014-002142 Application 12/729,434 detecting a completion of the transaction; compensating the referring entity, wherein the referring entity differs from an initiator of the offer; and detecting a contribution that is not directly attributed to the completion of the transaction; and compensating the contributing entity, the contributing entity differs from the referring entity and is not directly associated with the transaction. Appellant appeals the following rejection: 1. Claims 1-21under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Morgenstern (US 2005/0234781 Al, pub. Oct. 20, 2005). ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Morgenstern does not disclose compensating the referring entity and compensating the contributing entity? ANALYSIS The Appellant argues that Morgenstern does not disclose compensating both a referring entity and a contributing entity. We agree. The Examiner relies on paragraph 86 of Morgenstern for teaching this subject matter. We find that Morgenstern discloses that either the referring entity or the contributing entity is compensated. In this regard, paragraph 86 discloses rewarding the contributing entity, Friendster, without the rewards mechanism being delivered to the associated user or referring entity. As such, the Examiner has not directed us to a teaching in Morgenstern of rewarding both the associated user and Friendster. 2 Appeal2014-002142 Application 12/729,434 In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-10 dependent therefrom. We will also not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 20 and claim 21 dependent therefrom for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to the rejection of claim 1. We will also not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 11 and claims 12-19 dependent therefrom because the Examiner has not established that the Morgenstern system is capable of rewarding the referring entity and the contributing entity. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation