Ex Parte Understein

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 13, 2012

10510123 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte NORMAN UNDERSTEIN
____________

Appeal 2010-007530
Application 10/510,123
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU R.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-007530
Application 10/510,123

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
final rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-17 which are all the claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a system whereby
one customer can debit funds from their depository account to be credited to
another customer’s account (Spec. 2:13-16). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.

1. A method of processing funds between a transferor and a
transferee, at least the transferor having a transferor deposit sub-
account administered via a depository administrator, the depository
administrator maintaining a master account at a financial institution,
the method comprising:
(a) the transferor accessing the depository administrator via a
global network using a computer;
(b) the transferor requesting a transfer or hold of funds in the
transferor deposit subaccount using the computer via the global
network to or for the benefit of the transferee;
(c) if the transferee does not have a transferee deposit sub-
account administered via the depository administrator, providing the
transferee an opportunity to establish the transferee deposit sub-
account; and
(d) the depository administrator processing the funds between
the transferor deposit subaccount and the transferee deposit sub-
account, wherein each of the sub-accounts forms part of the master
Appeal 2010-007530
Application 10/510,123

3
account such that a transfer of funds between sub-accounts does not
affect a balance in the master account.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Vasic US 2001/0034676 A1 Oct. 25, 2001
Dent US 2002/0026396 A1 Feb. 28, 2002

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dent and Vasic.

THE ISSUES
With regards to claim 1 the issue turns on whether it would have been
obvious to combine Dent with the teachings of Vasic to meet the argued
claim limitations. Claims 2-5, 7-9, and 11-17 turn on the same issue.
With regard to claim 6 the issue turns on whether the prior art
discloses the argued claim limitation.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact made in the Answer at
Pages 3:15-5:12. Additional facts may appear in the Analysis section below.

Appeal 2010-007530
Application 10/510,123

4
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
Vlasic does not suggest that employees can transfer funds to each other
between the claimed sub-accounts (Br. 15). In contrast, the Examiner has
determined that the rejection of record is proper (Ans. 3-5, 14-15).
We agree with the Examiner. Dent has disclosed a system for
facilitating electronic transactions in which one consumer 104(n) can
transfer funds to another consumer 104(a) using a financial service center
102 having a financial transaction manager 116 (see Fig. 1, [0040], [0044]).
Dent does not disclose the transferring of funds to sub-accounts but the use
of sub-accounts for persons has been disclosed by Vasic [0056] and has also
been acknowledged by the Appellant as being known prior art (Spec. 2:8-
11). Here, the modification of the system of Dent to also allow the transfer
of funds also to conventional sub-accounts would have been an obvious
combination of familiar element for the predictable benefit of allowing the
customer fund transfers to be used on a wider scale by accessing sub-
accounts for transferring payroll or other payments. The Appellant has
argued that Vasic is related to employee payroll and does not allow for
transfer between sub-accounts (Br. 15). However, the rejection of record
uses the Vasic reference to teach the use of sub-accounts and the claimed
transferring between accounts has been disclosed by Dent as cited in the
rejection. For these above reasons the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-5,
7-9, and 11-17 which were not separately argued is sustained.
The Appellant has also argued that the rejection of claim 6 is improper
(Br. 17, Reply Br. 2). Claim 6 requires “holding the funds in the transferor
deposit sub-account until receiving confirmation that an event as occurred”.
Appeal 2010-007530
Application 10/510,123

5
Dent discloses that payments may be disputed (Fig. 19) and that clearance is
subject to authorization 1816 (Fig. 18). Dent also discloses that funds are
not released until the user provides a second authorization typically after a
product sold has been received and deemed acceptable [0126] and this
would serve as the claimed “event” for the cited claim and the rejection of
claim 6 is sustained as well.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Dent and Vasic.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-17 is sustained.

AFFIRMED

MP