Ex Parte Bryant

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2016

13178608 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/178,608 07/08/2011
139679 7590
Weiss & Arons LLP
1540 Route 202 Suite 8
Pomona, NY 10970
08/29/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew K. Bryant
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.
104-155 8741
EXAMINER
AZIZ, ABDULMAJEED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW K. BRYANT
Appeal2014-004223
Application 13/178,608
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, 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 1-22. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-004223
Application 13/178,608
BACKGROlH~D
Appellant's invention is directed to controlling account access and
more specifically, the application relates to issuance of instructions to
activate or deactivate an account (Spec., para. 1 ).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. Apparatus for controlling account access, the apparatus
compnsmg:
a receiver that is configured to receive from a customer,
while an account is in an active state, an account access control
instruction that is configured to change the account to an
inactive state, the account holding funds belonging to the
customer, the customer being one of a plurality of customers of
a financial institution, each of the customers owning funds that
are held in different accounts; and
a processor that is configured to:
initialize an account access control program; and
change the state of the account.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence
of unpatentability:
Franklin
Gephart
Suisa
us 5,883,810
US 2001/0047330 Al
US 2005/0149439 Al
Appellant appeal the following rejection(s):
Mar. 16, 1999
Nov. 29, 2001
July 7, 2005
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14--19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Gephart.
Claims 6, 13, and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gephart
and Suisa.
Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gephart and
Franklin.
2
Appeal2014-004223
Application 13/178,608
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Gephart does not
disclose an instruction that is configured to change an account to an inactive
state?
FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner's findings as our own (Final Act. 2--4).
Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis that follows.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellant's argument that an "account number" is mischaracterized as an
"account" in the Examiner's rejection (Reply Br. 2 (emphases omitted)).
Specifically; the Appellant argues that an account number is a numeric
sequence representing or identifying an account but not the account itself
(Reply Br. 2). Appellant also argues that Gephart does not teach changing
an account to an inactive state (Reply Br. 3). We agree with the Examiner's
response to these arguments found on pages 2 to 4 of the Answer and adopt
the responses as our own. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that the
deactivation of access to the account by deactivating the account number as
taught by Gephart is a deactivation of the account as broadly claimed (Ans.
2-4). Although Appellant is correct that Gephart discloses that one account
may have both a regular account number and a limited use account number,
Gephart also teaches that one account may just have a limited use account
number (Gephart, para. 41 ). In the embodiment with only a limited use
3
Appeal2014-004223
Application 13/178,608
account number, changing that account number to an inactive state
effective1y changes the account to '"an inactive state~' as broadly chimecL In
this regard, \Ve note that the /\ppeUant's argurnents appear to focus on
whether an account as a whole is deactivated and not whether an account bas
been changed to an inactive state. In view of the foregoing, we will sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We will also sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2-5, 7-12, 14--19, and 22 because the Appellant does not
argue the separate patentability of these claims.
Obviousness
We will sustain the rejection of claims 6, 13, and 21 as being
unpatentable over Gephart in view of Suisa and claim 20 as being
unpatentable over Gephart in view of Franklin because the Appellant relies
on the arguments made in response to the anticipation rejection in arguing
the patentability of these claims.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner 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)(l).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
4