Ex Parte Chaudhari

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2016

12107390 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/107,390 04/22/2008
132862 7590 06/28/2016
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. I PayPal
P.O. Box 2938
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Hardik Chaudhari
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.
2043.570US 1 9643
EXAMINER
SHAIKH, MOHAMMAD Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
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):
slw@blackhillsip.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARDIK CHAUDHARI
Appeal2014-002964
Application 12/107,390
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-30 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-002964
Application 12/107,390
THE INVENTION
The Appellant's claimed invention is directed to methods and systems
for installment payment utilization (Spec., para. 11 ). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method comprising:
accessing a credit instrument with a revolving balance, the
credit instrument being associated with a user, the revolving balance
at a revolving balance interest rate;
receiving a request including an indication of a previously
purchased item from the user;
identifying a portion of the revolving balance corresponding to
the previously purchased item based on the received request;
designating an installment balance for the credit instrument, the
installment balance associated with a payment schedule and a
payment amount and being at a different interest rate than the
revolving balance interest rate;
converting the portion of the revolving balance corresponding
to the previously purchased item to the installment balance; and
updating, using one or more processors, the credit instrument
• ' .1 1 • ,. l".i1 • ' 11 '1 1 responsive w me aes1gnanon or me msrnumem oarnnce.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 14--17, 24, 25, and 28-30 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rusk (US 2006/0195390 Al, pub.
Aug. 31, 2006) and Mancini (US 7,606,764 Bl, iss. Oct. 20, 2009).
2. Claims 2, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rusk, Mancini, and Hogan (US 2007 /0250442 Al, pub.
Oct. 25, 2007).
2
Appeal2014-002964
Application 12/107,390
3. Claims 9-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rusk, Mancini, and Poltorak (US 2006/0277139 Al, pub.
Dec. 7, 2006).
4. Claims 19-23, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Mancini and Bhagwat (US 2009/0210339 Al, pub.
Aug. 20, 2009).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the cited prior art fails to disclose claim limitations directed to:
receiving a request including an indication of a previously
purchased item from the user;
identifying a portion of the revolving balance corresponding
to the previously purchased item based on the received request;
converting the portion of the revolving balance corresponding
to the previously purchased item to the installment balance.
(App. Br. 10).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitation is shown by Mancini at column 8, lines 45-58 (Ans. 2-5).
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2014-002964
Application 12/107,390
We agree with the Appellant. The cited claim limitation requires
receiving a request including an indication of a previously
purchased item from the user . . . identifying a portion of the
revolving balance corresponding to the previously purchased
item ... [and] ... converting the portion of the revolving balance
corresponding to the previously purchased item to the
installment balance.
Here, the citation to Mancini at column 8, lines 45-58 fails to disclose for
instance "receiving a request including an indication of a previously
purchased item from the user" and thus the cited claim limitation has not
been shown (emphasis added). For this reason, the rejection of claim 1 and
its dependent claims is not sustained. Independent claims 24 and 28 each
contain a similar limitation and the rejection of these claims and their
dependent claims is not sustained for the reasons given above.
The Appellants has also argued that the rejection of claim 19 is
improper because the cited prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation for:
receiving a purchase offer for an item utilizing a
credit card, the credit card associated with a user;
accessing an installment payment setting defined by the user prior
to the receiving of the purchase offer.
(App. Br. 14.)
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitation is disclosed by Mancini at column 14, lines 35--48 and Bhagwat at
paragraphs 3 and 11 (Ans. 5-7).
We agree with the Appellant. The second portion of argued claim
limitations requires "accessing an installment payment setting defined by the
user prior to the receiving of the purchase offer" and the citation to Mancini
at column 14, 35--48 and Bhagwat at paragraphs 3 and 11 simply fails to
4
Appeal2014-002964
Application 12/107,390
disclose this (emphasis added). For this reason, the rejection of claim 19 and
its dependent claims is not sustained. Independent claim 26 contains a
similar limitation, and the rejection of this claim and its dependent claim is
not sustained for the reasons given above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-30 is reversed.
REVERSED
5