Ex Parte Paintin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2012

11692708 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SCOTT PAINTIN, LANCE MARR, MICHELLE
O’CALLAGHAN, REBECCA MANN,
and DIANE ROBERTSON
____________

Appeal 2010-006974
Application 11/692,708
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006974
Application 11/692,708

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1 to 22 and 29 to 34. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention is directed to a money transfer system and
messaging system.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computerized method for transferring
funds from a sender to a recipient with a recorded
message, the method comprising:
receiving at a host computer system a
request for a fund transfer from the sender,
wherein the sender makes the request for a fund
transfer at a transaction processing device;
receiving a payment from the sender through
the transaction processing device for the fund
transfer and transmitting payment confirmation to
the host computer system;
assigning an identifier to the fund transfer at
the host computer system;
providing the identifier to the sender through
the transaction processing device;
receiving the identifier from the sender
through a first communication device, wherein the
first communication device is different from the
transaction processing device;
receiving a recorded message from the
sender through the first communication device and
transmitting at least a copy of the recorded
message to the host computer system;
Appeal 2010-006974
Application 11/692,708

3
associating the recorded message with the
fund transfer at the host computer system using the
identifier;
receiving a request from the recipient to
receive the recorded message through a second
communication device, wherein the request
includes the identifier, and the second
communication device is different from the first
communication device and the transaction
processing device; and
providing the recorded message to the
recipient through the second communication
device.

Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 17, 19 to 22, and 29 to 34 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Blair (US 2004/0039702 A1, pub. Feb. 26,
2004), Csoka (US 2008/0109280 A1, pub. May 8, 2008) and Gomez-
Ortigoza (US 2006/0251225 A1, pub. Nov. 9, 2006).
Claims 2, 6, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Blair, Csoka, Gomez-Ortigoza, and Cowell (US 2006/0036496 A1, pub.
Feb. 16, 2006).

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. Ans. 4 to 5.
Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis that follows.

Appeal 2010-006974
Application 11/692,708

4
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants' argument that while both Blair and Csoka may use varying
identifiers, neither reference discloses the same transaction identifier for
both the sender and the receiver. We are also not persuaded of error by the
Appellants’ argument that Blair does not disclose an identifier being
provided for the recorded message that is both a receiver and a sender
identifier. These arguments are directed to the individual disclosures of the
references. The rejection is based on the combined teachings of the
references. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination
of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). In this regard, the Examiner relies on Blair for teaching the
receiver identifier and associating the recorded message with the fund
transfer at the host computer system using the identifier and relies on Csoka
for teaching a sender identifier.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and rationale. In addition, we
find that Csoka discloses in paragraph [0033] a transaction number or
identifier that is sent to the payor, payee and receiving system and as such
Csoka discloses a common payor and payee identifier.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that Blair does not disclose relying on the identifier to
provide the recorded message. We agree with the Examiner that Blair
discloses this subject matter in paragraph 44 that after the receiver enters a
PIN or identifier the receiver can then hear the gift card.
Appeal 2010-006974
Application 11/692,708

5
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. We will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to the remaining
claims on appeal because the Appellants have not argued the separate
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)(1) (2011).

AFFIRMED

hh