Ex Parte Abdelfattah et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 7, 2012

11290434 (B.P.A.I. May. 7, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/290,434 12/01/2005 Chalbia Abdelfattah 08516.0027-00 8619
60668 7590 05/07/2012
SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
FIELDS, BENJAMIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3684
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/07/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHALBIA ABDELFATTAH, JUERGEN ABT, DIRK BECKER,
ROGER F. GUTBROD, ROLF W. HAAS, JUAN PUGA ORTIZ, MARTIN
SCHROTER, STEFAN UFER, JOERG WEGENER, and
BURKHARD H. WEISS
___________

Appeal 2011-005861
Application 11/290,434
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-005861
Application 11/290,434

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Chalbia Abdelfattah et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 4-8, 11-16, and 19. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on May 3,
2012.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE. 1

THE INVENTION
This invention is a financial and banking data processing system.
Spec. para. [002].
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A data processing system, comprising:
storage means storing an account identifier
identifying a customer account, the account
identifier including a set of control parameters;
interface means coupled to an account
management system that is separate from the data
processing system, the account management
system buffering postings to the customer account,
the interface means receiving the buffered postings
from the account management system; and
an overdraft protection application program
processing the buffered postings using the set of

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Sep. 27, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 17, 2011),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 22, 2010).

Appeal 2011-005861
Application 11/290,434

3
control parameters to determine an overdraft
protection amount that would prevent an overdraft
of the customer account, the overdraft protection
application program being an upgrade to the
account management system, wherein the set of
control parameters is divided into sub-sets of
control parameters that provide an overdraft
protection functionality of the overdraft protection
application program,
wherein the overdraft protection application
program generates an overdraft protection transfer
request for the determined overdraft protection
amount as a result of processing the buffered
postings, and the interface means sends the
overdraft protection transfer request to the account
management system to credit the overdraft
protection amount to the customer account before
booking the buffered postings to prevent an
overdraft of the customer account,
and
wherein the interface means receives the
buffered postings from the account management
system on request of the overdraft protection
application program.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Tucker
Tucker
Tanaka
US 2006/0059084 A1
US 2006/0059085 A1
US 7,171,401 B2
Mar. 16, 2006
Mar. 16, 2006
Jan. 30, 2007

Appeal 2011-005861
Application 11/290,434

4
The following rejection is before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 4-8, 11-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Tucker US 2006/0059085
A1 [hereinafter “CIP Tucker”] and Tanaka.

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner has established that the subject
matter of CIP Tucker applied in the rejection is entitled to the earlier filing
date of Tucker US 2006/0059084 A1 [hereinafter “Parent Tucker”].

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 4-8, 11-16, and 19 as unpatentable over the prior
art. We agree with the Appellants’ argument on pages 13-16 of the Appeal
Brief and pages 2-4 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner has not established
that the subject matter of CIP Tucker applied in the rejection is entitled to
the earlier filing date of Parent Tucker by being supported, in compliance
with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, by Parent Tucker. Since CIP Tucker
was filed on December 16, 2004, which is after the December 1, 2004
effective filing date of the instant application, the Examiner has not
established that the subject matter of CIP Tucker relied upon in the rejection
is prior art. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 4-8, 11-16, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over CIP Tucker and Tanaka is
reversed.
Appeal 2011-005861
Application 11/290,434

5

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4-8, 11-16, and 19 is
reversed.

REVERSED

mls