Ex Parte Degen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2012

10434409 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT G. DEGEN,
BRIAN PRENDERGAST,
and SCOTT C. HANSEN
____________

Appeal 2010-007320
Application 10/434,409
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007320
Application 10/434,409

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 15 to 23. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 15 is illustrative:
15. A method for progressive value transfer evaluation,
the method comprising:
receiving a first transaction package comprising a
plurality of first transaction data points;
forming a first root node affinity associated with the first
transaction package, the first root node affinity comprising a
first text string representing at least one of the plurality of first
transaction data points as one of a set of predefined root
transaction data types;
comparing the first root node affinity with a tier one
affinity, the tier one affinity comprising a second text string
representing an assimilation of a second root node affinity with
at least one of a plurality of second transaction data points, the
plurality of second transaction data points being received as at
least a portion of a second transaction;
assimilating the first root node affinity with the tier one
affinity into a third text string based at least in part on the
comparison;
converting the tier one affinity to a tier two affinity based
at least in part on the comparison with the root node affinity,
the tier two affinity comprising the third text string; and
generating a report associated with the tier two affinity.

Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 15 to 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Busuioc (US 6,212,266 B1, iss. Apr. 3, 2001).

Appeal 2010-007320
Application 10/434,409

3
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that Busuioc does not disclose “comparing the
first root node affinity with a tier one affinity, the tier one affinity
comprising a second text string representing an assimilation of a second root
node affinity with at least one a plurality of second transaction data points.”
We agree.
We find that Busuioc discloses a matching module which compares
the call records against a series of predefined rules within a rule set to detect
suspected fraud. Busuioc gives the examples that one rule may be that the
call is an international call from a pay phone and another rule may be that
the call has been paid for by a charge card (col. 3, ll. 24 to 34). A degree of
match is then calculated. If the rule closely matches the call record, the
value of the degree of match will be high and if the match is poor, the degree
of match will be low (col. 3, ll. 45 to 49). This degree of match is a factor in
calculating a positive matching ratio (col. 4, ll. 13 to 17). The files are
ordered according to their respective ratios so that the most likely fraudulent
cases are at the start (col. 4, ll. 32 to 34; 37 to 39).
We agree with the Appellants and find that Busuioc does not compare
a first root node affinity comprising first text strings representing first
transaction data points with a tier one affinity which comprises second text
string representing one of a plurality of second transaction data points. The
comparison that is performed in the Busuioc reference is a comparison to
determine whether the transaction data points match a rule.

Appeal 2010-007320
Application 10/434,409

4
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 15 and the claims dependent thereon. We will also no sustain the
rejection as it is directed to claim 23 because this claim includes language
similar to that in claim 15 related to a first tier affinity.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

hh