Ex Parte Kazerani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2018

14937663 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/937,663 11/10/2015 Moujan Kazerani
27623 7590 10/25/2018
OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP
ONE LANDMARK SQUARE, 10TH FLOOR
STAMFORD, CT 06901
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
384.9549 5653
EXAMINER
HOLLY, JOHN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3696
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2018 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 MOUJAN KAZERANI, JEFFREY M. STIBEL,
AARON B. STIBEL, and ARMAN KATIRAEI
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JASON CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-18, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention "pertains to systems for optimizing entity credit
indirectly through graphical user interfaces ( GUis) and directly through
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Dun & Bradstreet
Emerging Businesses Corp. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
electronic transferring of funds between lines of credit." (Spec. ,r 1 ).
Exemplary Claim
1. A method for automatically balancing entity credit, the method
compnsmg:
providing a front-end application to a particular entity for
installation on a network enabled device of the entity;
receiving over the Internet from the front-end application at a
back-end machine, access to a plurality of lines of credit that a
plurality of lenders extend to said particular entity, the back-end
machine comprising a microprocessor and memory, wherein the
microprocessor
generates a current credit state for the entity based on current
values of at least one credit variable compiled from the plurality
of lines of credit, wherein said current values are used in
computing a credit score of the particular entity;
optimizes the current values for the at least one credit variable
across the plurality of lines of credit, wherein said optimizing
comprises (i) generating a payment schedule specifying timing
and amounts in optimally paying debt owed across the plurality
of lines of credit and (ii) adjusting the current values for the at
least one credit variable in each of the plurality of lines of credit
to adjusted values according to a redistribution of debt resulting
from the payment schedule, wherein said adjusted values
increase the credit score of the particular entity relative to said
current values;
generates an alert comprising the current credit state, the
payment schedule, and the adjusted values;
transmits the alert over the Internet to the network enabled
device, wherein the alert activates the front-end application to
display on the network enabled device a first presentation
displaying the current values of the at least one credit variable
compiled from the plurality of lines of credit, a second
presentation displaying the adjusted values as an optimal
redistribution of the current values resulting in an increase to the
credit score of the particular entity, and a link for accepting the
2
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
paylllentschedule; and
perforllls, in response to invocation of the link frolll the alert, a
plurality of electronic funds transfers (EFTs) frolll a bank or
deposit account of the particular entity to the plurality of lenders
according to said paylllent schedule.
App. Br. 20-21 (Elllphasis added to dispositive contested lilllitations ).
Rejections
A. Claillls 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a
judicial exception, without significantly lllore. Final Act. 3.
B. Claillls 1-12 are rejected under§ 103 as being obvious over Griffin et
al. (US 2011/0131131 Al; June 2, 2011) (hereinafter "Griffin"), in view of
Schnall (US 2002/0116322 Al; Aug. 22, 2002). Final Act. 9.
C. Claillls 13-17 are rejected under § 103 as being obvious over Griffin,
in view of Danaher et al. (US 2008/0149659 Al; Aug. 7, 2003) (hereinafter
"Danaher"). Final Act. 19.
D. Clailll 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Griffin, in view of Ceribelli et al. (US 2015/0142643 Al; May 21, 2015)
(hereinafter "Ceribelli"). Final Act. 23.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Exallliner err in rejecting claillls 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly lllore?
2. Did the Exallliner err in rejecting claillls 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
as being obvious over the cited colllbinations of references?
3
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive
arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We highlight and address specific findings
and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below.
Mayo/Alice Analysis under 35 USC§ 101
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent may be obtained for "any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof." The Supreme Court has "long held that
this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLSBankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quotingAss'nfor
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
The Supreme Court in Alice reiterated the two-step framework previously
set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 82-84 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-
eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
The first step in that analysis is to determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts, such as an
abstract idea. Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to,
fundamental economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an
idea of itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Id. at 2355-57.
If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the inquiry
ends. See Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed.
4
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
Cir. 2017). Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step in which the
elements of the claims are considered "individually and 'as an ordered
combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the
nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice, at 2355
(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). We consider the question of whether
the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the capabilities of the
computing devices, or, instead, "a process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea'
for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Enfzsh, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
We, therefore, decide under step two whether the claims: (a) set forth
an inventive concept that provides a specific means or method that improves
the relevant technology, or (b) are directed to a result or effect that itself is
the abstract idea, in which the claims merely invoke generic processes and
machinery. See Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1336.
The Examiner's Rejection A under 35 USC§ 101
Regarding the first step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis, the Examiner
concludes claims 1-18 are directed to an abstract idea of a fundamental
economic principle. The Examiner recites the language of claim 1, and
concludes the claim is directed to, inter alia, the result of increasing the
"credit score without changing total debt owed by the particular entity to the
plurality of lenders, which is a fundamental economic principle." Final Act.
4--5. 2 The Examiner further concludes: "[t]he claim(s) are similar to other
2 "Patent eligibility under§ 101 presents an issue of law." Accenture Glob.
Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir.
2013).
5
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts such as
comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options
(SmartGene )."3 Final Act. 5.
Regarding the second step of the Mayol Alice analysis, the Examiner
again recites the language of claim 1 and concludes the claims are:
not seen to be a technical field, nor do they purport to improve
the functioning of the computer itself. The claims are not seen to
be "necessarily rooted in technology in order to overcome a
problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks"
as in the DDR case [4], and do not include additional elements
that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea as they are seen to be mere instructions to
implement the abstract idea on a computer using a processor and
a tangible computer readable medium storing a computer
program product configured to store instructions.
In reference to [claims] 2 - 12 and 14 - 1 7 these dependent claims
have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent
claims 1, 13 and 18. However they do not cure the deficiencies
of claims 1, 13 and 18.
Final Act. 7-8.
3 The Examiner is referring to SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological
Laboratories, SA, 555 F. App'x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Whatever the
boundaries of the 'abstract ideas' category, the claim at issue here involves a
mental process excluded from section 101: the mental steps of comparing
new and stored information and using rules to identify medical options.") In
SmartGene, step (c) of Advanced Biological Laboratories' claim 1 recites:
"generating in said computing device advisory information for one or more
therapeutic treatment regimens in said ranked listing based on said patient
information and said expert rules." Id. at 952. (nonprecedential).
4 The Examiner distinguishes Appellants' claims from the claims
considered by the court in DDR Holdings, LLC v Hotels.com, LP, 773 F3d
1245 (Fed Cir 2014) (holding that claims directed to e-commerce on the
computer using the Internet recite patent-eligible subject matter).
6
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
Thus, the Examiner concludes the claims do not include additional
elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. 5
For the aforementioned reasons, the Examiner concludes that all
claims 1-18 on appeal are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejection A under§ 101 of Claims 13-17
Mayo/Alice Analysis -Step 1
Regarding Alice Step 1, and claim 13, Appellants note that claim 13
comprises "'a first presentation ... ', 'a set of sliders ... ', and 'a second
presentation .... "' App. Br. 8. Appellants contend:
Such an interface or the collective set of limitations that form
claim 13 are not directed to a fundamental economic practice.
In particular, the interface provides a first presentation
displaying a current credit score and current values for different
credit variables of the credit score, sliders with which a user
can individually adjust the current values for each of the credit
variables, and a second presentation displaying an updated
credit score based on the adjusted values of the credit variables.
In other words, the claim is directed to the recited interface,
elements of the interface, and interactivity provided as a result
of the interface, as opposed to being directed to a fundamental
economic practice.
Id. ( emphasis added).
Regarding rejection A under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we agree with
Appellants regarding claim 13 and associated dependent claims 14--1 7, but
5 The patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact.
Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325
(Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, "[t]he question of whether a claim element or
combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a
skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact." Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
7
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding independent claims 1
and 18, and the claims which depend therefrom.
Claim 13 is directed to "An interface for optimizing entity credit,"
which we conclude is distinguishable from claim 1, that is directed to "A
method for automatically balancing entity credit," and claim 18, that is
directed to, inter alia, "A method comprising: "accessing accounts of a
particular entity at each of a plurality of lenders" and "producing" a non-
interactive interface (i.e., sans the interactive "sliders" recited in claim 13)
that merely displays data.
Although a recited "alert" activates the device of claim 18 "to display
said interface with a link for initiating said rebalancing of the first and
second lines of credit with the first and second lenders," we conclude
method claim 18, considered as a whole, and similar claim 1, are each
directed to a fundamental economic principle, as concluded by the
Examiner. Final Act. 5.
In contrast, we conclude the "interface" positively recited in the
preamble of claim 13, consistent with the supporting description in
Appellants' Specification (e.g., ,r 29), encompasses a graphical user
interface, which we conclude, as claimed, improves the functioning of the
standard generic computer user interface by enabling the user to easily
slidably adjust (i.e., manipulate or change) any or all of multiple data values
to any of a plurality of user-selected values, with the effects of such adjusted
values on a target value ( e.g., a credit score) being instantly effectuated upon
8
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
invocation of a claimed displayed "link" that is associated with the
"interface. " 6
Although the types of data inputs ( credit variables) recited in claim 13
are relevant to credit scores, we conclude such interactive inteiface could
similarly be used to quickly vary or adjust one or many different types of
input data values, to efficiently determine the effect upon a target value
result.
In determining whether claims are patent-eligible under Section 101,
"the decisional mechanism courts now apply is to examine earlier cases in
which a similar or parallel descriptive nature can be seen-what prior cases
were about, and which way they were decided." Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v.
Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal
Circuit also guides that "[E]xaminers are to continue to determine if the
claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a concept that is similar to
concepts previously found abstract by the courts." Id. at 1294 n.2.
Regarding Appellants' independent "interface" claim 13, the court in
Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356,
1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018), considered a similar user interface claim:
1. A computing device comprising
a display screen, the computing
device being configured to display
on the screen a menu listing one or
more applications, and additionally
6 See e.g., Spec. f 29: "In some embodiments, the alert includes interactive
user interface elements that allow the user to modify values for different
credit variables. The front-end application sends the modified values to the
system back-end which responds by passing back to the front-end
application an updated credit score that is derived from the modified credit
variable values."
9
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
being configured to display on
the screen an application summary
that can be reached directly from
the menu, wherein the application
summary displays a limited list of
data offered within the one or more
applications, each of the data in the
list being selectable to launch the
respective application and enable
the selected data to be seen within
the respective application, and
wherein the application summary is
displayed while the one or more
applications are in an un-launched
state.
Claim 1 of the '476 patent, Id. at 1359.
The Federal Circuit concluded that the similar subject claims in Core
Wireless were not directed to an abstract idea, because:
The asserted claims in this case are directed to an
improved user interface for computing devices, not to the
abstract idea of an index, as argued by LG on appeal. [ J
Although the generic idea of summarizing information
certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are
directed to a particular manner of summarizing and
presenting information in electronic devices.
Core Wireless at 1362 (emphasis added).
The court further explained:
These limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying
a limited set of information to the user, rather than using
conventional user interface methods to display a generic
index on a computer. Like the improved systems claimed
in Enfzsh, Thales, Visual Memory, and Finjan, these claims
recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting
in an improved user interface for electronic devices.
10
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
Because we hold that the asserted claims are not directed
to an abstract idea, we do not proceed to the second step
of the inquiry. The claims are patent eligible under § 101.
Core Wireless at 1363 (emphasis added).
Applying this guidance here, we conclude Appellants' claim 13, and
claims 14--17 which depend therefrom, are sufficiently similar to the claims
considered by the Core Wireless court that were held not to be directed to an
abstract idea, but instead improved "the efficiency of using the electronic
device by bringing together 'a limited list of common functions and
commonly accessed stored data,' which can be accessed directly from the
main menu." Core Wireless at 1363 (internal citation omitted). Thus, we
conclude the similarity of the claims considered by the Core Wireless court
to Appellants' improved interactive user interface (claim 13) provides
applicable controlling guidance in this appeal. Therefore, in light of the
guidance of Core Wireless, we agree with Appellants:
In other words, the claim is directed to the recited interface,
elements of the interface, and interactivity provided as a result
of the inteiface, as opposed to being directed to a fundamental
economic practice.
App. Br. 8.
Because we agree with Appellants that claims 13-17, considered as a
whole, are directed to an interactive user interface having movable sliders,
and are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept (i.e., an abstract idea), our
inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ends. See Visual Memory LLC, 867 F.3d at
1262.
Although we need not reach Alice step 2 to decide the patent
eligibility of claims 13-17, in the alternative, we also agree with Appellants
that the claimed "interface" of independent claim 13 provides an inventive
11
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
concept, for at least the reasons argued by Appellants:
Claim 13 further recites unconventional steps for visualizing
and interacting with an entity's credit in order to determine
how changes to different credit variables can affect the entity's
credit score without the entity actually implementing those
changes.
App. Br. 11 ( emphasis added).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection A under§ 101 for
claims 13-1 7.
Rejection A under§ 101 of Claims 1-12 and 18
Appellants contend that claims 1-12 and 18 are not directed to a
judicially recognized exception, i.e., a fundamental economic practice.
(App. Br. 6, 8). Appellants particularly urge that the Examiner has erred by
failing to consider the claims as a whole. Id. In support, Appellants merely
recite the claim language, and urge: "Although the methodology includes
certain steps that may involve a fundamental economic practice, the
methodology as a whole is not directed to any fundamental economic
practice or any other judicially recognized exception." App. Br. 7.
In contrast with our discussion of claim 13 above ( as being directed to
an interactive interface, when the claim is considered as a whole), we
conclude that method claims 1-12 and 18, when considered as a whole, are
directed to steps for performing a fundamental economic practice, i.e., the
redistribution of debt among various lines of credit to effectuate a lower
credit score. We conclude Appellants' arguments for Alice step 1 of claims
12
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
1-12 and 18 are merely conclusory, with no Federal Circuit case law cited in
support in the Appeal Brief ( 6-11 ), or in the Reply Brief ( 1-5). 7
We note that our reviewing court has held that claims directed to data
collection, analysis, and display are directed to an abstract idea. Elec. Power
Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that
"collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the
collection and analysis" are "a familiar class of claims 'directed to' a patent
ineligible concept"); see also In re TL! Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823
F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839
F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In contrast to our review supra of independent inteif ace claim 13, on
this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding that
claims 1-12 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea. Appellants provide no
further substantive arguments regarding Alice Step 1. Arguments not made
are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Therefore, we proceed to Alice
Step 2 for claims 1-12 and 18.
Mayo/Alice Analysis - Step 2
Because we conclude claims 1-12 and 18 are directed to an abstract
idea for essentially the same reasons articulated by the Examiner (Final Act.
3-5), we tum to the second part of the Alice/ Mayo analysis. We analyze the
claims to determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as
7 We afford such conclusory attorney argument little weight. In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-
Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("Attorney argument is no
substitute for evidence.").
13
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
an ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to "significantly more"
than the abstract idea. Alice, at 2357.
Regarding Alice Step 2, Appellants address the purported inventive
concept of claims 1-12 and 18 by merely repeating the pattern of reciting
limitations in the claims (App. Br. 9-10), and asserting that "[t]hese
limitations incorporate networking, computer technology, and computer
automation as part of the methodology, thereby providing significant
improvements and amounting to significantly more than any fundamental
economic practice." App. Br. 10.
Similar to our discussion above regarding Alice step 1, we conclude
Appellants' arguments for Alice step 2 of claims 1-12 and 18 are merely
conclusory, with no Federal Circuit case law cited in support of step 2 in the
Appeal Brief (9-11 ), or in the Reply Brief (3-5). Seen. 7, supra.
We find claims 1-12 and 18 on appeal are silent regarding specific
limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory,
network, database, or Internet. We particularly note Appellants'
Specification (i-f 101) expressly describes: "[ c ]omputer and computer system
are meant in their broadest sense, and can include any electronic device with
a processor including cellular telephones, smartphones, portable digital
assistants, tablet devices, laptops, desktops, and servers. Examples of
computer-readable media include, but are not limited to, CDROMs, flash
drives, RAM chips, hard drives, EPROMs, etc." (Emphasis added).
Regarding the use of the recited generic "microprocessor" and
"memory" ( claim 1 ), and the generic "digital network" ( claim 18), the
Supreme Court held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot
transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."
14
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
Alice, at 2358; see also BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on
'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract
idea.").
Given the supporting description in Appellants' Specification (i-f 101 ),
of generic computer components, we find Appellants' method claims 1-12
and 18 do not provide a solution "necessarily rooted in computer technology
in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
networks," as considered by the court in DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. (Emphasis
added).
Our reviewing court has "repeatedly held that such invocations of
computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are
'insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application' of an
abstract idea." Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (internal citations
omitted); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Rather, the claims recite both a
generic computer element-a processor-and a series of generic computer
'components' that merely restate their individual functions .... That is to
say, they merely describe the functions of the abstract idea itself, without
particularity. This is simply not enough under step two.").
Because none of Appellants' claims 1-12 and 18 is directed to an
improvement in a processor, database, or other computer/network
component, we conclude that none of the claim limitations, viewed both
individually and as an ordered combination, amounts to significantly more
than the judicial exception in order to sufficiently transform the nature of the
claims into patent-eligible subject matter.
15
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
Applying the aforementioned guidance from our reviewing courts to
the claims before us on appeal, we conclude, in our Mayol Alice analysis, that
each of Appellants' claims 1-12 and 18, considered as a whole, is directed
to (under step one), a patent-ineligible abstract idea, and under step two,
does not recite something "significantly more" (Alice, at 2357 (internal
citation and quotations omitted)) to transform the nature of the claim into a
patent-eligible application. Accordingly, for at least these reasons, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection A under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 1-12
and 18, as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter in light of Alice
and its progeny. 8
Rejection B of Independent Claim 1 under§ 103
Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err by finding that
Griffin and Schnall would have collectively taught or suggested the
contested limitations of a microprocessor that performs the recited step of
optimizing:
the current values for the at least one credit variable across the
plurality of lines of credit, wherein said optimizing comprises (i)
generating a payment schedule specifying timing and amounts in
optimally paying debt owed across the plurality of lines of credit
and (ii) adjusting the current values for the at least one credit
variable in each of the plurality of lines of credit to adjusted
values according to a redistribution of debt resulting from the
payment schedule, wherein said adjusted values increase the
8 To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive
arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
16
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
credit score of the particular entity relative to said current
values[,]
within the meaning of representative independent claim 1 ?9 (Emphasis
added). App. Br. 20.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants refer to paragraphs 69, 91, and 132 of
Griffin, as relied upon by the Examiner, and urge: "There is also no
disclosure for '(ii) adjusting the current values for the at least one credit
variable in each of the plurality of lines of credit to adjusted values
according to a redistribution of debt resulting from the payment schedule."'
App. Br. 13.
In response, the Examiner further explains the basis for the rejection:
With further emphasis at (Griffin, [0131] - The risk score
logic/routine 108 may be further configured to assign customers
or groups of customers to segments based on their risk score.
For example, according to specific embodiments, the risk
scores may be based on a scale of one to ten, where one is the
lowest risk and ten is the highest risk. The risk score
logic/routine 108 may be configured to assign customers having
a risk score between one and three into a low risk
segment/group. This low risk group's behaviors are not
considered high risk, nor are they associated with any high risk
companies or individuals. There is a low chance that customers
in the low risk segment will behave in such a manner such that
those doing business with them will lose money due to fraud,
default or other type of risk.).
Ans. 15-16.
Based upon our review of the evidence cited by the Examiner (i1i1 69,
91,131, and 132 of Griffin), we find the Examiner paints with a broad
9 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation (BRI) consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
17
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
brush. We find the Examiner has not fully developed the record to show that
Griffin and Schnall teach or suggest, alone or in combination, at least the
contested limitation of: "(ii) adjusting the current values for the at least one
credit variable in each of the plurality of lines of credit to adjusted values
according to a redistribution of debt resulting from the payment schedule."
App. Br. 13.
For essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants in the Appeal
Brief (12-13), and the Reply Brief (7-8), we agree with Appellants that
there is no teaching or suggestion in the cited portions of Griffin ( or in
Schnall) for at least the contested claim limitation: "(ii) adjusting the current
values for the at least one credit variable in each of the plurality of lines of
credit to adjusted values according to a redistribution of debt resulting from
the payment schedule." App. Br. 13; claim 1.
Therefore, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellants' arguments regarding obviousness rejection B of independent
claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse § 103 rejection B of independent claim 1,
and rejection B of claims 2-12, which depend directly or indirectly from
claim 1.
Rejection C of Independent Claim 13 under§ 103
Issues: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err by finding that
the combination of Griffin and Danaher would have taught or suggested the
contested limitations of an interface that comprises:
a second presentation displaying an updated credit score for
the particular entity derived from adjusted values for the
plurality of credit variables specified using the set of sliders
and a link, wherein invocation of said link initiates a plurality
of electronic funds transfers effectuating said adjusted values
for the plurality of credit variables[,]
18
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
within the meaning of representative independent claim 13? 10 (Emphasis
added). App. Br. 20.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants refer to paragraphs 69, 91, and 132 of
Griffin relied on by the Examiner and urge:
The FOA cites paragraphs 98, 148, and figure 3 of Danaher in
rejecting this limitation. See FOA, page 20. Respectfully, the
cited paragraphs and figures relate to a presentation displaying
an updated interest rate rather than an updated credit score as
recited by the present limitation. Moreover, there is no
disclosure or teaching for deriving the updated credit score
from "adjusted values for the plurality of credit variables
specified using the set of sliders" or including a link in the
presentation "wherein invocation of said link initiates a
plurality of electronic funds transfers effectuating said adjusted
values for the plurality of credit variables".
App. Br. 16 ( emphasis added).
In response, the Examiner further explains the basis for the rejection:
(Danaher, [0098], [0148] - FIG. 3 shows, the calculator
interface and interest rate analyses can include additional
factors, some or all of which can be adjusted. Such adjustable
values can include: 1) Credit score, 2) Debt-to-income ratio, 3)
Collateral, and 4) Loan amount. As the user manipulates the
sliders or other interface controls, the interest rate table is
updated to reflect the new factor values used to compute
expected interest rates.). With further emphasis at (Danaher,
Claim 3 - The loan rate analysis system of claim 2 wherein the
rate information stored by the rate information database is
periodically updated with interest rate data from the rate
information system.).
Ans. 22-23.
10 See supra n.9.
19
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
After reviewing the evidence cited by the Examiner (i1i1 98, 148 and
Fig. 3 of Danaher), we again find the Examiner paints with a broad brush.
In particular, we find the evidence supports Appellants' contention that the
"cited paragraphs and figures relate to a presentation displaying an updated
interest rate rather than an updated credit score as recited by the present
limitation." App. Br. 16.
In pertinent part, paragraph 147 of Danaher describes: "As FIG. 8
shows, the calculator interface includes a slider control allowing the user to
adjust the credit score and determine the effect of changes in the credit score
on currently available interest rates."
The Examiner expressly finds: "As the user manipulates the sliders or
other interface controls, the interest rate table is updated to reflect the new
factor values used to compute expected interest rates." Ans. 23. Simply
put, we find an updated computed interest rate does not reasonably teach or
suggest and updated credit score.
For essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants in the Appeal
Brief (16), and the Reply Brief (7-8), we agree with Appellants that there is
no teaching or suggestion in the cited portions of Griffin of at least the
contested claim limitation: "(ii) adjusting the current values for the at least
one credit variable in each of the plurality of lines of credit to adjusted
values according to a redistribution of debt resulting from the payment
schedule," within the meaning of independent claim 13.
Therefore, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellants' arguments regarding obviousness rejection C of independent
claim 13. Accordingly, we reverse§ 103 rejection C of independent claim
20
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
13, and rejection C of claims 14--17, which depend directly or indirectly
from claim 13 .
Rejection D of Independent Claim 18 under§ 103
Issues: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err by finding that
the combination of Griffin and Ceribelli would have taught or suggested the
contested limitation of:
rebalancing the debt in accordance with credit scoring
algorithms of a credit reporting agency, wherein the credit
reporting agency issues a credit score for the particular entity,
wherein rebalancing the debt comprises (i) identifying an
available debt buffer in a first line of credit extended by a first
lender of the plurality of lenders[,]
within the meaning of representative independent claim 18? 11 (Emphasis
added). App. Br. 24--25.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants refer to paragraph 150 of Ceribelli, as
relied upon by the Examiner. Appellants contend:
Ceribelli merely teaches " [ a ]lso taken into consideration could
be, in some cases, previous payment activity, to account for the
order of payments and alternate late payments among vendors;
amount of any outstanding balance, to prioritize payments by
amount ( as a potential indication of the importance of the
vendor) or by entire balance owed; and write-off of certain
accounts, based on certain historical behaviors, factoring out
possible future payments from customers who exhibit
characteristics of non- payment." Nowhere is there any
disclosure or teaching for "an available debt buffer in a first
line of credit", let alone identifying the debt buffer as part of the
step for rebalancing debt. The omitted teaching for "identifying
an available debt buffer in a first line of credit" is a significant
and critical omission in the prior art teachings. Without
11 See supra n.9.
21
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
teaching of this element, the remainder of the claim limitations
cannot be disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art.
App. Br. 17-18 (emphasis added).
In response, the Examiner further explains the basis for the rejection:
The Examiner quotes a few sentences from paragraph 150 of Ceribelli
(Ans. 25), and additionally cites to Ceribelli, paragraph 110, and Fig. 16B,
and finds:
With further emphasis at (Ceribelli, [0110] - In FIG. 16B, for
example, a transfer from customer 1603a(a) to vendor 1603a(n)
is executed on the intra-bank host of Bank A, from account
1603a(a) to clearing entity master account 1602a as transfer
1620a and then on to vendor account 1603a(n) as transfer
1620b. However, a transfer from customer 1603a(b) (at BankA)
to vendor 1603n(n) (at Bank N) is made as transfer 1621a from
account 1603a(b) to master account 1602a (at BankA) and then
as transfer 1621 n from master account 1602n to account
1603n(n) (at Bank N). Also shown symbolically is a transfer
1630an, symbolizing the clearing transactions between
different master accounts 1602a, 1602n as needed to rebalance
the system.).
Ans. 26.
After reviewing the evidence cited by the Examiner (Fig. 16B, ,r,r 110,
150 of Ceribelli), we again find the Examiner paints with a broad brush.
Notably missing from the Examiner's response (Ans. 25-26) is any
definitive mapping of the contested debt buffer ("identifying an available
debt buffer in a first line of credit extended by a first lender of the plurality
of lenders" - claim 18) to the corresponding feature found in Ceribelli. 12
12 See 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2) ("When a reference is complex or shows or
describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular
part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of
22
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
For essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants in the Appeal
Brief (17-18), and the Reply Brief (12-13), we agree with Appellants that
there is no teaching or suggestion in the cited portions of Ceribelli for at
least the contested claim 18 method step of:
rebalancing the debt in accordance with credit scoring
algorithms of a credit reporting agency, wherein the credit
reporting agency issues a credit score for the particular entity,
wherein rebalancing the debt comprises (i) identifying an
available debt buffer in a first line of credit extended by a first
lender of the plurality of lenders[,]
within the meaning of representative independent claim 18. 13
Therefore, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellants' arguments regarding obviousness rejection D of independent
claim 18. Accordingly, we reverse§ 103 rejection D of independent claim
18.
Conclusions
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-12 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without
significantly more.
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more.
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 as being obvious over
the cited combinations of references under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected
claim specified." ( emphasis added).
13 See supra n.9.
23
Appeal2017-005286
Application 14/937,663
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 13-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
24