Ex Parte ThomasDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 201612852272 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/852,272 08/06/2010 Tracey R. Thomas 35690 7590 02/26/2016 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. P.O. BOX 398 AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398 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. 6657-32806 3462 EXAMINER APPLE, KIRSTEN SACHWITZ ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3694 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): patent_docketing@intprop.com ptomhkkg@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TRACEY R. THOMAS Appeal2013-009546 Application 12/852,272 Technology Center 3600 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Final rejection of claims 11, 12, 14, and 16-29, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. Appeal2013-009546 Application 12/852,272 THE INVENTION The Appellant's claimed invention is directed to determining a user's income, debt, and goals in determining savings amounts (Spec. para. 14). Claim 11, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 11. A method comprising: a first computer system sending to a second computer system a request for social network information associated with a user; the first computer system receiving the social network information in response to the request; and the first computer system automatically determining a savings amount based on the social network information and personal financial information for the user. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review 1: 1. Claims 11, 14, 16-24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over O'Connor (US 2010/0241559 Al, pub. Sept. 23, 2010) and Crane (US 7,313,543 Bl, iss. Dec. 25, 2007). 2. Claims 12, 25, and 29, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over O'Connor, Crane, and Miller (Piggy Bank 101: It pays to teach kids money-handling early, Final ed. 1, San Francisco Chronicle (Dec. 29, 2000). 1 Claims 1-10 and 11-19 were provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 and 1-24 of copending Application No. 12/852,122 respectively in the Final Rejection. The Appellant stated that a terminal disclaimer has been filed and the Answer no longer contains these provisional rejections, so they are considered withdrawn. 2 Appeal2013-009546 Application 12/852,272 FINDfNGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 ANALYSIS The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 11 is improper because the cited prior art fails to disclose the claim limitations for "a request for social network information associated with a user" and for "automatically determining a savings amount based on the social network information and personal financial information for the user." (Appeal Br. 13-20; see also Reply Br. 3, 4) (emphasis omitted). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitations are found in O'Connor at Figure 6 and paragraphs 14--16, 20, and 23-26; and Crane at col. 2, lines 10-35. (Final Act. 4, 5; see also Ans. 3, 4). We agree with the Examiner. The argued claim limitation for "a request for social network information associated with a user" is shown by O'Connor in Figure 6 in which the information about friends of the user are displayed, as well as their comments. O'Connor at paragraphs 14--19 also discloses the "online social network" of the user meeting the argued claim limitation. The argued claim limitation for "automatically determining a savings amount based on the social network information and personal financial information for the user" is disclosed by O'Connor at Figure 6 and paragraph 24. In Figure 6 the savings towards a 529 plan are disclosed, as 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). 3 Appeal2013-009546 Application 12/852,272 well as the progress towards that savings and the bank's point of view. In O'Connor at paragraph 25 it is disclosed that the goals and progress of the group may be displayed, and an example is given for a charitable goal in a financial social network account. Note that in 0 'Connor at paragraph 46 it is disclosed that the second user may also contribute to the financial goal. These citations to O'Connor do disclose the savings amount determined based on the social network information and personal financial information for the user. As the above argued claim limitations have been shown in the prior art, the rejection of claim 11 is sustained. The same arguments have been presented for the remaining claims and the rejection of those claims is sustained for the same reasons given above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 11, 12, 14, and 16-29 is sustained. 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation