Ex Parte Blagg et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 22, 2010

11533041 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 22, 2010)

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.
11/533,041 09/19/2006 Lynn Holm Blagg 020375-022111US 3830
20350 7590 09/23/2010
TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP
TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER
EIGHTH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3834
EXAMINER
CHANG, EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3691
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2010 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 LYNN HOLM BLAGG,
EUGENE F. KATHOL,
GRETCHEN L. DONLIN, and
MICHAEL B. GREAR
___________

Appeal 2010-000039
Application 11/533,041
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-000039
Application 11/533,041

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Lynn Holm Blagg et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 (2002) of the final rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM. 2

THE INVENTION
This invention is “a method for linking accounts corresponding to
different products together to create a group.” Specification [0004].
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for applying a group payment to a
group, the group comprising a plurality of accounts
of different types, the method comprising:
receiving a payment at a payment processor
and entering the payment into a computer system;
determining that the payment is a group
payment, wherein determining that the
payment is a group payment includes identifying
one or more accounts to which the payment is
associated and determining that the one or more
accounts are associated with the group based on
group master data identifying the group;

2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed Mar. 10, 2009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Jun. 10,
2009).

Appeal 2010-000039
Application 11/533,041

3
determining which accounts are included in
a group payment allocation defined in relation to
the group;
comparing the group payment to a group
balance, wherein the group balance indicates a
liability due in relation to one or more accounts
associated with the group payment allocation;
based upon the comparison between the
group payment and the group balance, identifying
a group payment option using the computer
system, wherein the group payment option is
defined in the group master data for the group and
defines application of the group payment;
calculating the group payment allocation in
the computer system using the group payment
option, the group payment, the group balance, and
the balances of the accounts included in the group
payment allocation; and
applying the group payment to the accounts
included in the group payment allocation, wherein
a liability associated with one or more accounts
included in the group payment allocation is
reduced through application of the payment.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Eder
Pickering
Fleming
Pryor
US 5,615,109
US 5,684,965
US 5,953,710
US 6,985,867 B1
Mar. 25, 1997
Nov. 4, 1997
Sep. 14, 1999
Jan. 10, 2006

The following rejections are before us for review:
Appeal 2010-000039
Application 11/533,041

4
1. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fleming, Pickering, and Eder.
2. Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fleming, Pickering, Eder, and Pryor.

ISSUE
The issue is whether claims 1-18 are unpatentable over Fleming,
Pickering, and Eder. Specifically, the issue is whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been led by Fleming, Pickering, and Eder to a step of
“identifying a group payment option using the computer system, wherein the
group payment option is defined in the group master data for the group and
defines application of the group payment.” The rejection of claims 19-23
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Fleming, Pickering,
Eder, and Pryor also turn on this issue.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent
when ‘the differences between the subject matter
sought to be patented and the prior art are such that
the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which
said subject matter pertains.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill
in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also
Appeal 2010-000039
Application 11/533,041

5
KSR, 550 U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be
reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the
inquiry that controls.”) The Court in Graham further noted that evidence of
secondary considerations “might be utilized to give light to the
circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be
patented.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be come articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are
supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
Fleming
1. Fleming describes a system where multiple children’s credit cards
can be linked to a parent’s credit card. Col. 15, ll. 51-60.
2. Fleming describes that the system’s data model includes a parent
account record, which can include multiple child account numbers.
Col. 6, ll. 48-52 and Fig. 2.
3. Fleming describes that the parent can make a single payment for
both a child’s and the parent’s credit card accounts. Col. 3, ll. 20-
24.

Appeal 2010-000039
Application 11/533,041

6
Pickering
4. Pickering describes a method and system for consolidating billing.
Col. 3, ll. 30-43.
5. Pickering describes processing a remitted payment for the
consolidated billing. Col. 5, l. 24-56 and Fig. 2.
6. Pickering describes that when a partial payment is submitted, the
customer can identify how the partial payment is allocated to the
billers. Col. 5, ll. 45-51.
7. Pickering also describes that if partial payment is submitted and
the customer has not identified an allocation, there are several
possible allocations, such as tying non-payment to certain billers
based on a comparison of the total amount due or pro-rata
allocation. Col. 5, l. 67 – col. 6, l. 31.
8. Pickering states that the consolidated billing system is “best
implemented by means of computer technology” and that
“Software programs are run by a central processing unit (CPU) of
the financial firm to perform various mathematical calculation . . .
The equations for such calculations and the various hardware
CPU’s and memory devices which can be implemented are well
known in the art.” Col. 9, ll. 50-65.

Eder
9. Eder discloses use of a relational database.
10. Eder describes a data structure that includes the use of master
tables and data tables. Col. 39, ll. 48-50.
Appeal 2010-000039
Application 11/533,041

7
11. Eder depicts the master tables including various user inputted
attributes. Table 30, col. 40, ll. 21-40.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-18 under §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Fleming, Pickering, and Eder.
The Appellants argue claims 1-18 as a group. Br. 4-8. We select
claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims
2-18 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2009).
The Appellants argue that the Examiner has not established a prima
face showing of obviousness because none of the cited prior art teaches the
entire step of “based upon the comparison between the group payment and
the group balance, identifying a group payment option using the computer
system, wherein the group payment option is defined in the group master
data for the group and defines application of the group payment.” Br. 5-8.
First, the Appellants argue that Examiner improperly equated Fleming’s
parent account to the claimed group master data because the parent account
does not define a group payment option. Br. 5-6. Next, the Appellants state
that Pickering teaches a system that acts as an intermediary in a bill paying
process and then asserts that Pickering does not teach the step at issue. Br.
6. Finally, the Appellants state that Eder’s Table 30, cited by the Examiner,
does not teach group payments or group master data. Br. 7. The Appellants
seem to argue that because each of the cited references does not teach the
entire step of “identifying a group payment option using the computer
system, wherein the group payment option is defined in the group master
data for the group and defines application of the group payment” the
Appeal 2010-000039
Application 11/533,041

8
Examiner has not established a prima facie showing of obviousness. See
App. Br. 5.
The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim
does not establish nonobviousness. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230
(1976). The issue is "whether the difference between the prior art and the
subject matter in question is a difference sufficient to render the claimed
subject matter unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art.'" Dann, 425
U.S. at 228-29 (citation omitted) (finding system for automatic record
keeping of bank checks and deposits obvious in view of nature of extensive
use of data processing systems in banking industry and "closely analogous"
patent for an automatic data processing system used in a large business
organization for keeping and updating system transaction files for each
department of the organization.) To be nonobvious, an improvement must
be "more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions." KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
We find that the Examiner has established a prima face showing of
obviousness. In the rejection, the Examiner relies upon a combination of
Pickering and Eder to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to the step at issue. Answer 4-6. The Examiner cites to column 5,
line 49+ of Pickering to teach “based upon the comparison between the
group payment and the group balance, identifying a group payment option
using the computer system.” Answer 5. See FF 4-7. The Examiner states
that the combination of Fleming and Pickering does not specifically teach
using a master data structure, but that Eder teaches this limitation. Answer
5-6. See FF 8. The Examiner cites to column 41, line 55 and Tables 36 and
37 of Elder to teach “wherein the group payment option is defined in the
Appeal 2010-000039
Application 11/533,041

9
group master data for the group and defines application of the group
payment.” Answer 6. See FF 9-11. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify the combination of Fleming and Pickering “as
taught by Eder’s data structure to use a master data structure that contains
many different attributes. This commonly used unified data structure greatly
increases efficiency of the system.” Id. The Examiner found that the
combination of the cited references would result in the step at issue. Answer
4-6 and 12. Therefore, we find that the Examiner has established a prima
facie showing of obviousness.
The Appellants’ arguments are directed to whether each of the cited
references individually teaches the entire step at issue and are not address
the Examiner’s specific rationale above in combing Pickering and Eder to
arrive at the limitation at issue. See App. Br. 5-8. Further, we note that the
Appellants have not provided any evidence of secondary considerations.
Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have not overcome the prima face
showing of obviousness, and we sustain the rejection of claims 1-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fleming, Pickering, and Eder.

The rejection of claims 19-23 under §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Fleming, Pickering, Eder, and Pryor.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 19-23 as being unpatentable over Fleming, Pickering,
Eder, and Pryor since the Appellants have not challenged such with any
reasonable specificity (see Br. 8), thereby allowing claims 19-23 to stand or
fall with parent claim 1 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir.
1987)).
Appeal 2010-000039
Application 11/533,041

10

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-23 is 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED

mev

TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP
TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER
EIGHTH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-3834