KAY, Christopher E. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 4, 2020

13082654 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2020)

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.
13/082,654 04/08/2011 Christopher E. KAY CITI0379-US 6492
75127 7590 05/04/2020
CITI CUSTOMER NUMBER
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
EXAMINER
TINKLER, MURIEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2020 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):
esophir@foley.com
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER E. KAY, SAM LISING, and
SOPNENDU MOHANTY
____________

Appeal 2019-001258
Application 13/082,654
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, JAMES A. WORTH, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Citibank, N.A.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001258
Application 13/082,654

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a method for
customizing financial applications on a user interface. Spec., para. 3.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.

1. A computer-implemented method for customizing a user
interface, the method comprising:
receiving, by a server, from a touchpoint device, identification
information entered by a user;
accessing, by the server, a record of the user from a database
using the received identification information;
determining, by the server, whether the record has any financial
transaction application windows configured for the user interface on
the touchpoint device;
transmitting, by the server to the touchpoint device, at least a
first financial transaction application window and a second financial
transaction application window identified by the record of the user for
display of the first financial transaction application window and the
second financial transaction application window simultaneously on
the user interface of the touchpoint device;
receiving, by the server, instructions from the user via the first
financial transaction application window to perform a financial
transaction;
performing, by the server, the financial transaction while the
touchpoint device displays at least the first financial transaction
application window and the second financial transaction application
window, wherein the first financial transaction application window
and the second financial transaction application window are updated
with real-time information; and
appending, by the server, a widget bar to at least one of the first
financial transaction application window or the second financial
transaction application window based on evaluation of the financial
transaction data performed at the at least the first financial transaction
application window and the second financial transaction application
window, wherein the widget bar displays a real-time update of a
qualification status of the user corresponding to one or more
Appeal 2019-001258
Application 13/082,654

3

financial services based on the evaluation of the financial transaction
data performed at the at least the first financial transaction application
window and the second financial transaction application window.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims Appendix).

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to show at the time the application was
filed, possession of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fei (US 2003/0040959 Al, published
February 27, 2003) and Rosenthal (US 2006/0259407 Al, published
November 16, 2006).

FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2.

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The Examiner in the Answer at page 10 has determined that the
Specification does not provide support for the claim limitation for
a widget bar …[appended to a] … transaction application window ….
based on evaluation of the financial transaction data…. wherein the
widget bar displays a real-time update of a qualification status of

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).
Appeal 2019-001258
Application 13/082,654

4

…financial services based on the evaluation of the financial
transaction data.
In contrast, the Appellant has argued that support for this claim
limitation is provided in the Specification at paragraphs 38 and 57. Reply
Br. 4–5.
We agree with the Appellant. Here, the Specification at
paragraphs 38 and 57 and Figure 2c provide support for the cited claim
limitation. For example, Figure 2c shows a plurality of widgets 255, 260,
265, 270, and 275 on a single display. Widget 265 is depicted as including
an additional bar 265b. Spec., Fig. 2c. Paragraph 38 describes with
reference to Figure 2c that widgets 255–275 are tied to a financial institution
and that additional bar 265b of widget 265 is based on the user’s financial
status. Along the same vein, paragraph 57 describes that a financial
transaction conducted on one widget causes simultaneous, real-time updates
to the other displayed widgets. Paragraph 38 provides that additional bar
265b advises the user that the user is pre-qualified for a housing loan.
Likewise, Figure 2c shows additional bar 265b, displaying “YOU ARE
PRE-QUALIFIED FOR A CITISAVER HOME LOAN” to a user.
Accordingly, this rejection is not sustained.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Appellant argues that rejection of claim 1 is improper because the
cited prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation for:
appending, by the server, a widget bar to at least one of the first
financial transaction application window or the second financial
transaction application window based on evaluation of the financial
transaction data performed at the at least the first financial transaction
application window and the second financial transaction application
Appeal 2019-001258
Application 13/082,654

5

window, wherein the widget bar displays a real-time update of a
qualification status of the user corresponding to one or more
financial services based on the evaluation of the financial transaction
data performed at the at least the first financial transaction application
window and the second financial transaction application window.
Appeal Br. 4–9; Reply Br. 2–7.
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitation is shown by Fei at Figure 10 (1014), Figure 14 (1418), Figure 18
and paragraphs 12–14, 16, 204, 212. Ans. 6, 12.
We agree with the Appellant. Here, the above citations fail to disclose
the cited claim limitation. For example, the citation to Figure 18 fails to
disclose that the “widget bar displays a real-time update of a qualification
status of the user corresponding to one or more financial services based on
the evaluation of the financial transaction data performed at the at least the
first financial transaction application window and the second financial
transaction application window”. Accordingly, this rejection of claim 1 and
its dependent claims is not sustained. Claim 10 contains a similar limitation
and the rejection of this claim and its dependent claims is not sustained for
these same reasons.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above.

Appeal 2019-001258
Application 13/082,654

6

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–15,
and 17–20
112, first
paragraph
Possession 1–6, 8–15,
and 17–20
1–6, 8–15,
and 17–20
103 Rosenthal and Fei 1–6, 8–15,
and 17–20
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8–15,
and 17–20

REVERSED