Ex Parte Ayala et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 10, 2012

11260962 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 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.
11/260,962 10/27/2005 Daniel I. Ayala 052873-0125 7395
78740 7590 09/10/2012
FOLEY & LARDNER
777 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 3800
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-5306
EXAMINER
NIQUETTE, ROBERT R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2012 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 DANIEL I. AYALA and EUGENE GUTIERREZ
____________________

Appeal 2011-003131
Application 11/260,962
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003131
Application 11/260,962

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
3, 5-10, and 12-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to a global remittance platform (Title). Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system that remits funds from a remitter to a
beneficiary, the system being provided by an enterprise, the
system comprising:
at least one of a store vision teller system (SVT) and a
phone bank component for receiving and transmitting
transaction data for a remittance transaction;
a database configured to store account data for bank
accounts associated with account holders;
an enterprise financial system that receives said
transaction data from either said SVT and said phone bank
component and that processes said transaction data and outputs
processed transaction data;
a remittance network member account that receives and
stores said processed transaction data to reconcile and settle
said remittance transaction;
an international remittance engine (IRE) that receives and
processes said processed transaction data to create a first output
file in a predetermined message format and to output said first
output file to an external remittance network member system;
an enterprise remittance general ledger system that
receives a second output file from said IRE and uses said
second output file to send a reconcile and settlement message to
said remittance network member account for reconcilement and
settlement; and
a demand deposit account that receives funds associated
with said remittance transaction from said enterprise remittance
general ledger system resulting in funds being available in said
external remittance network member system;
wherein the system is configured to support a plurality of
types of remittance transactions, including cash-to-cash,
Appeal 2011-003131
Application 11/260,962

3
account-to-cash, cash-to-account, and account-to-account
remittance transactions; and
wherein for account-to-account and account-to-cash
transactions, the funds are retrieved from one of the bank
accounts; and
wherein for account-to-cash transactions, the account-to-
cash transaction is not anchored to a particular account of the
beneficiary and the beneficiary does not have an account with
the enterprise.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Zachariassen
Kight
US 2002/0062280 A1
US 2004/0064409 A1
May 23, 2002
Apr. 1, 2004
Land US 7,177,828 B1 Feb. 13, 2007

Walker, Leslie, E-Mail Money System Quickly Gains Currency,
Washington Post Syndicate, October 12, 2000 (hereinafter “PayPal”);
Good, Barbara, Bringing the Unbanked Onboard, Federal Reserve
Bank of Cleveland, January 15, 1999 (hereinafter “Good”).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zachariassen in view of Kight, Land, PayPal, and
Good.

FINDINGS OF FACT
FF1. Users of PayPal transfer funds to other people, or send request
for payment, by filling out a form that automatically sends an e-mail notice
Appeal 2011-003131
Application 11/260,962

4
to the recipient. In the background, the money is moved from the sender’s
credit card account, bank account, or PayPal account into the recipient’s
PayPal account (p. 2).
FF2. Extracting money from PayPal is not quick. You can request a
paper check and wait a week or two. PayPal plans to speed cash
withdrawals next month by issuing debit cards that will allow users to take
cash from automated teller machines (pp. 2-3).

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination
of Zachariassen in view of Kight, Land, PayPal, and Good renders obvious
“wherein for account-to-cash transactions, the account-to-cash transaction is
not anchored to a particular account of the beneficiary and the beneficiary
does not have an account with the enterprise,” as recited in independent
claim 11 (App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 2-4). The Examiner cites PayPal for
disclosing account-to-cash transactions, and Good for disclosing “the
account-to-cash transaction is not anchored to a particular account of the
beneficiary and the beneficiary does not have an account with the enterprise”
(Exam’r’s Ans. 6-7, 14-15). The preamble and other context of independent
claim 12 show that the recited account-to-cash transaction is between a
remitter and beneficiary. The account-to-cash transaction disclosed in

1 As Appellants argue independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 19 together, we also
choose independent claim 1 as representative of independent claims 1, 8, 15,
and 19. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
2 Independent claim 1 recites “[a] system that remits funds from a remitter to
a beneficiary” and “wherein the system is configured to support a plurality
of types of remittance transactions, including cash-to-cash, account-to-cash,
cash-to-account, and account-to-account remittance transactions.”
Appeal 2011-003131
Application 11/260,962

5
PayPal solely involves the beneficiary (FF2). PayPal discloses that remitter
to beneficiary transactions involve accounts of both parties (FF1).
Accordingly, PayPal, on its own, does not disclose the recited account-to-
cash transactions. And as the Examiner admits that “Good was not used to
address cash-to-cash, account-to-cash, cash-to-account or account-to-
account. PayPal was used to address this,” we will not sustain this rejection
(Exam’r’s Ans. 14).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-21 is
REVERSED.
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).

REVERSED

mls