Ex Parte Reid et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2013

11131605 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4
___________ 5
6
Ex parte WILLIAM REID, 7
CRAIG SWACKHAMMER, 8
KERRY LYNCH, 9
and JOHNSON LAU 10
___________ 11
12
Appeal 2010-012110 13
Application 11/131,605 14
Technology Center 3600 15
___________ 16
17
18
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and 19
JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges. 20
21
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 22
23
24
DECISION ON APPEAL25
Appeal 2010-012110
Application 11/131,605

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1
William Reid, Craig Swackhammer, Kerry Lynch, and Johnson Lau 2
(Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 3
1, 5-6, 9-10, 12-15, 19-20, 22-25, 27-28, 30, 32, and 35-42, the only claims 4
pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal 5
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 6
The Appellants invented a form of assurance and financing services, 7
providing assurance and financing services to buyers and sellers involved in 8
commercial transactions. (Spec., para. 0002). 9
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 10
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 11
paragraphing added]. 12
1. A system comprising a server comprising a computer 13
readable medium, wherein the server executes: 14
[1] control logic on the computer readable medium 15
that monitors a plurality of transactions between a buyer 16
and a seller, 17
wherein for each transaction, a payment is owed by the 18
buyer to the seller; 19
and 20
[2] control logic on the computer readable medium 21
that allows a seller bank to offer seller bank receivable 22
discounting aggregation (SBRDA) to the seller 23
using information collected from monitoring the plurality 24
of transactions; 25

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed May 7, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed August 23,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 23, 2010).
Appeal 2010-012110
Application 11/131,605

3

[3] wherein the seller bank handles processing of receivables 1
for the plurality of transactions on behalf of the seller, 2
[4] wherein the control logic on the computer readable medium 3
that allows the seller bank to offer seller bank receivable 4
discounting aggregation (SBRDA) to the seller further 5
comprises control logic 6
that builds a tranche 7
based on a set of criteria specified by the seller 8
bank, 9
wherein the tranche is associated with an aggregation of 10
receivables, 11
the receivables comprising secured and unsecured 12
receivables, 13
wherein the secured receivables are 14
guaranteed by one or more buyer banks; 15
[5] control logic that presents the tranche as a line of credit to 16
the seller; 17
[6] control logic on the computer readable medium that 18
monitors activities incurred with respect to the tranche; 19
and 20
[7] control logic on the computer readable medium that 21
modifies the tranche in response to the monitored activities. 22
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 23
Yuan US 2002/0038277 A1 Mar. 28, 2002 24
Claims 1, 5-6, 9-10, 12-15, 19-20, 22-25, 27-28, 30, 32, and 35-42 25
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yuan. 26
27
ISSUES 28
The issues of anticipation turn primarily on whether Yuan describes 29
presenting lines of credit. 30
Appeal 2010-012110
Application 11/131,605

4

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 1
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 2
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 3
Facts Related to the Prior Art - Yuan 4
01. Yuan is directed to involving banks, factors, or other financial 5
institutions to aid in sales transactions of goods and services 6
between sellers and buyers. By involving banks, factors, or other 7
financial institutions, letters of credit may be eliminated. Yuan, 8
para. 0002. 9
02. Yuan does not mention presenting a line of credit anywhere in its 10
disclosure. 11
12
ANALYSIS 13
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that Yuan fails to 14
describe presenting a tranche as a line of credit, as recited in each of 15
independent claims 1, 15, and 25. The Examiner cites portions of Yuan 16
describing advancing whole loan amounts rather than presenting a line of 17
credit against which loans may be drawn. The Examiner has rejected all 18
claims under anticipation rather than obviousness. The Examiner appears to 19
find that an advance is a line of credit. Ans. 34. The Examiner is in error. 20
A line of credit is a maximum amount that subsequent advances may add up 21
to. It necessarily implies some mechanism for tracking and accounting for 22
such subsequent advances, which Yuan does not describe. Yuan describes 23
conventional factoring instead. 24
The failure of Yuan to describe this limitation is fatal to the 25
Examiner’s findings, and so the Examiner has failed to present a prima facie 26
Appeal 2010-012110
Application 11/131,605

5

case of anticipation. We express no opinion regarding whether the claims 1
would be obvious over Yuan. 2
3
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 4
The rejection of claims 1, 5-6, 9-10, 12-15, 19-20, 22-25, 27-28, 30, 5
32, and 35-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yuan is improper. 6
7
DECISION 8
The rejection of claims 1, 5-6, 9-10, 12-15, 19-20, 22-25, 27-28, 30, 9
32, and 35-42 is reversed. 10
REVERSED 11
12
13
14
hh 15