Ex Parte Rucker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2015

11589661 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/589,661 10/30/2006 Daniel Vincent Rucker 384.8315USU 5276
7590 03/25/2015
Paul D. Greeley, Esq.
Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P.
10th Floor
One Landmark Square
Stamford, CT 06901-2682
EXAMINER
LIU, I JUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3692
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2015 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 DANIEL VINCENT RUCKER
____________

Appeal 2012-0083131
Application 11/589,6612
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.

WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 17–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134
and 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Our decision refers to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Brief” or
“App. Br.,” filed Oct. 26, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 27,
2012), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 28, 2012).
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Dun and Bradstreet of
Short Hills, New Jersey (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2012-008313
Application 11/589,661

2
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure relates to a system “for providing a fraud risk
score to a user by matching applicant identification data to a historical
search database” (Spec. 1, ll. 14–16).
Claim 17, the sole independent claim on appeal, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
17. A system comprising:
an interface for receiving applicant identification data;
a first database comprising records of searches for credit
histories of business entities;
an evaluator that:
(a) receives the applicant identification data from
the interface;
(b) matches the applicant identification data to the
records in the first database, thus yielding a plurality of
matched records;
(c) determines, from the plurality of matched
records, a total number of searches for credit histories
about the applicant that have been conducted during a
fixed period of time;
(d) determines a risk of fraud based on the number
of searches; and
(e) produces a score that indicates the risk of fraud;
and an output for providing the score to a user via a
report or display.

Appeal Br. 16, Claims App.

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner maintains, and the Appellant appeals, the following
rejections:
1. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davis (US 2007/0084912 A1, pub. Apr. 19, 2007),
Appeal 2012-008313
Application 11/589,661

3
Soto (US 2005/0203773 A1, pub. Sept. 15, 2005), and Stockton (US
2003/0217060 A1, pub. Nov. 20, 2003); and
2. Claims 18–22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Davis, Soto, Stockton, and Official Notice.3

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 17
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that none of the prior art
references relied on by the Examiner discloses the number of times that an
applicant’s credit history has been searched, as recited by claim 17, i.e., “(c)
determines, from the plurality of matched records, a total number of searches
for credit histories about the applicant that have been conducted during a
fixed period of time” (App. Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 2).
Specifically, we agree with Appellant that, although Davis mentions
credit scores (see ¶ 62), Davis does not describe a total number of credit
histories specific to an applicant (see App. Br. 11). Davis generally
discloses that certain suspect types of photo IDs can be flagged for scrutiny
(see Abstract). Davis (see ¶¶ 57–66) further discloses that when there is a
greater risk of fraud, the person scrutinizing a photo ID and collateral IDs
may cross-reference an ID with other databases, including credit reports and
military service records. However, Davis does not describe analysis of the
total number of credit history searches. Although the Examiner also relies
on paragraphs 81–82, 84–86 and 115 and Figures 1–2 of Davis, these
portions of Davis describe historical information about classes of persons or

3 The Examiner’s rejection contains a parenthetical stating that the Official
Notice is “admitted prior art now.” (Ans. 6–9).
Appeal 2012-008313
Application 11/589,661

4
IDs that may pose a fraud risk rather than relating to historical information
about individual applicants.
Further, the Examiner does not dispute Appellant’s assertion that Soto
does not mention credit history (id.). Although the Examiner finds that
Stockton (¶ 45) mentions a quantity of credit history searches, we agree with
Appellant that Stockton refers to the pricing for a number of searches
conducted by a user, rather than the total number of searches about an
applicant (see App. Br. 11; Ans. 11).
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Dependent claims 18–22
Claims 18, which depends from claim 17, stands rejected as
unpatentable over Davis, Soto, Stockton, and further in view of Official
Notice.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s
reliance on Official Notice does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 17 (see App. Br. 13). The Examiner’s
rejection of claim 18 states: “Official Notice is taken that if the evaluator
finds a match, adjusts the score, thus yielding an adjusted score, wherein the
adjusted score indicates a great risk of fraud feature is old and well known in
the business industry as a convenient way for company or employee to
prevent fraud.” (Ans. 6). However, this finding does not relate to “a total
number of searches” about an applicant. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Examiner’s
Appeal 2012-008313
Application 11/589,661

5
rejection of claims 19–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), which also depend from
claim 17, falls for similar reasons.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 17–22 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls