Ex Parte Walls et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 16, 2013

11836984 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2013)

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.
11/836,984 08/10/2007 Robert K. Walls P00308-US-UTIL(M01.059/U) 4137
28062 7590 04/16/2013
BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST AVENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
EXAMINER
GOTTSCHALK, MARTIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3693
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/16/2013 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 ROBERT K. WALLS, DAVID CHAN, DENNIS J. HILL, and
SARA E. FIEBIGER
____________

Appeal 2011-007249
Application 11/836,984
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL W. KIM, and NINA L.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-007249
Application 11/836,984

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 27-451. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates generally to methods, apparatus, systems, means
and computer program products for implementing a remittance system on
the basis of an international payment card system (Spec. 1:7-9).
Claim 27, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
27. A method comprising:
receiving in a computer a request for a funds transfer
from a first financial institution located in a first country, the
request including data that indicates the name and residential
address of an individual who initiated the funds transfer; and
utilizing the computer to route the funds transfer from the
first financial institution to a second financial institution located
in a second country that is different from the first country, the
routing of the funds transfer including transmitting, from the
computer to a receiving FI (financial institution) computer
operated by the second financial institution, via a payment
system that handles debit card and/or credit card transactions,
the name and residential address of the individual who initiated
the funds transfer, said second financial institution having
issued a payment card account belonging to a recipient, said
request indicating that said payment card account is to receive
the funds transfer;
wherein the name and residential address of the
individual who initiated the funds transfer are automatically
incorporated in a data exchange handled in the payment system
for executing the funds transfer.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed September 30, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
December 21, 2010).
Appeal 2011-007249
Application 11/836,984

3
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 27-32, 37-41 and 43-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Chauhan (US 2006/0287953 A1, pub. Dec. 21,
2006) and Lawrence (US 2004/0078321 A1, pub. Apr. 22, 2004).
Claims 33-36 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chauhan, Lawrence, and Official Notice.

We AFFIRM.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Lawrence
1. Lawrence discloses that situations can arise where an
intermediary financial institution may wish to provide a service or product to
a customer of the intermediary financial institution but not be able to provide
the service themselves (para. [0005]).
2. The action can include, for example, a request to open an
account, execute a financial transaction or take some other action (para.
[0005]).
3. The intermediary financial institution may approach a Primary
Financial Institution and request that the Primary Financial Institution
provide the necessary service (para. [0005]).
4. The Intermediary 101-102 can initiate a transaction 312 with a
Primary Financial Institution 107 or other subscriber 108 and cause the
registered information to be conveyed to the Primary Financial Institution
107 (para. [0069]).
5. Registered information may include a customer identifier 313
Appeal 2011-007249
Application 11/836,984

4
or other indication descriptive of the customer, to the Primary Financial
Institution 107 (para. [0069]).
6. Registered information may also include datum which identify
a home and business address for the customer; a means of identification,
such as a passport, driver's license, birth certificate, or other official
document, as well as data gleaned from such a document, such as a numeric
identifier; alternate names the customer has ever been known by; or other
information (para. [0043]).

ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 27-32, 37-41, and 43-45
Appellants argue claims 27-32, 37-41, and 43-45 as a group (App. Br.
7-8). Appellants select independent claim 27 as representative (App. Br. 7).
We do as well. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants assert that Chauhan does not disclose “wherein the name
and residential address of the individual who initiated the funds transfer are
automatically incorporated in a data exchange handled in the payment
system for executing the funds transfer,” as recited in independent claim 27.
However, independent claim 27 is rejected over a combination of Chauhan
and Lawrence (Ans. 5-8, 12-14). Paragraphs [0005] and [0069] of Lawrence
disclose that a financial transaction between an intermediary financial
institution and a Primary Financial Institution can include a customer
identifier 313 or other indication descriptive of the customer. Such
indications can include a name and residential address (paras. [0043]).
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.

Appeal 2011-007249
Application 11/836,984

5
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 33-36 and 42
Appellants do not separately argue the rejection of claims 33-36 and
42. Accordingly, we summarily sustain this rejection as well.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 27-45 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)(iv).
AFFIRMED

mls