Konel Parekh

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2019

14573842 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2019)

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.
14/573,842 12/17/2014 Konel PAREKH CITI0409-US 2324
75127 7590 10/01/2019
DENTONS US LLP (CITI CUSTOMER NUMBER)
ATTN: Eric Sophir
P.O. BOX 061080
CHICAGO, IL 60606-1080
EXAMINER
KANERVO, VIRPI H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2019 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):
#sg.citi-docket@dentons.com
eric.sophir@dentons.com
patents.us@dentons.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KONEL PAREKH1
____________

Appeal 2018-006929
Application 14/573,842
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1–3 and 6–8. Claims 4, 5, 9,
and 10 have been canceled. Claims 11–20 have been withdrawn from
consideration.2 See Final Act. 1–2; Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Citibank, N.A. (“Appellant”) is the applicant as provided in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) filed Dec. 17, 2014
(claiming benefit of US 61/920,605, filed Dec. 24, 2013); Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.”) filed Apr. 5, 2018; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June
Appeal 2018-006929
Application 14/573,842

2
We reverse.
Appellant’s Invention
The invention “relates to a system for providing a trade finance assets
computing platform” (Spec. ¶ 2). More specifically, the invention relates to
a system and method for dynamically allocating a trade finance asset
utilizing multiple booking center servers distributed across a set of
geographic locations and configured based upon requirements of the
respective geographic locations. See Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 16–22.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, further illustrates the
invention:
1. A method comprising:
transmitting, by a central funding entity server to a first
asset purchasing entity server, a first subordinated note for
obtaining a first local security, the first subordinated note
absorbing potential losses of the first local security;
upon a first plurality of booking center servers of a first
seller and distributed within a first set of geographic locations
dynamically allocating a trade finance asset across a first asset
purchasing entity and receiving a share of the trade finance
asset, receiving, by the central funding entity server from the
first asset purchasing entity server communicatively coupled to
the first plurality of booking centers, the first local security that
was issued by the first asset purchasing entity server in
response to purchasing the trade finance asset from the first
seller, wherein each of the first plurality of booking center
servers is configured based on one or more requirements of the
respective geographic location;

26, 2018. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final
Act.”) mailed Dec. 19, 2017; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 14, 2018.
Appeal 2018-006929
Application 14/573,842

3
transmitting, by the central funding entity server to a
second asset purchasing entity server, a second subordinated
note for obtaining a second local security, the second
subordinated note absorbing potential losses of the second local
security;
upon a second plurality of booking center servers of a
second seller and distributed within a second set of geographic
locations distinct from the first set of geographic locations
dynamically allocating the trade finance asset across the second
asset purchasing entity and receiving a share of the trade
finance asset, receiving, by the central funding entity server
from the second asset purchasing entity server, the second local
security that was issued by the second asset purchasing entity
server in response to purchasing a trade finance asset from a
second seller, wherein each of the second plurality of booking
center servers is configured based on one or more requirements
of the respective geographic location;
aggregating, by the central funding entity server, a
plurality of local securities comprising the first local security
and the second local security into a security database record;
receiving, by the central funding entity server from a
master program administrator server, approval to issue local
securities to investors; and
issuing, by the central funding entity server, at least a
portion of the plurality of local securities from the security
database record, the local securities comprising the first local
security from the first asset purchasing server and the second
local security from the second asset purchasing server to
investors.
Appeal Br. 13–14 (Claim App.).
Appeal 2018-006929
Application 14/573,842

4
Rejection on Appeal3, 4
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3 and 6–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Oppenheimer et al. (US 2004/0225597 A1;
published Nov. 11, 2004) (“Oppenheimer”), Davies et al. (US 2008/0256082
A1; published Oct. 16, 2008) (“Davies”), Long et al. (US 2011/0196705 A1;
published Aug. 11, 2011) (“Long”), and Slone (US 2002/0128958 A1;
published Sept. 12, 2002). See Final Act. 6–11.
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellant’s contentions, and the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in concluding that Oppenheimer, Davies, Long,
and Slone collectively would have taught or suggested a “plurality of
booking center servers . . . distributed within a . . . set of geographic
locations dynamically allocating a trade finance asset,” where “each of the
. . . plurality of booking center servers is configured based on one or more
requirements of the respective geographic location,” within the meaning of
Appellant’s claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claim 6?

3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1–3 and 6–8 under § 101
as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Ans. 7; Final Act.
4–6. Accordingly, we do not address Appellant’s arguments with respect to
the withdrawn rejection. See Appeal Br. 6–9.
4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103, e.g., to rename 35 U.S.C.
§ 103’s subsections. Because the present application has an effective filing
date (Dec. 24, 2013) later than the AIA’s effective date for applications
(March 16, 2013), this decision refers to the AIA versions of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Appeal 2018-006929
Application 14/573,842

5
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–3 and 6–8
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (and independent claim 6,
as well as dependent claims 2, 3, 7, and 8) as being obvious in view of the
combination of Oppenheimer, Davies, Long, and Slone. See Final Act. 6–
10; Ans. 7–9. The Examiner cites Oppenheimer as teaching many aspects of
claim 1, including multiple booking centers (a first plurality of booking
centers and a second plurality of booking centers) (see Final Act. 7 (citing
Oppenheimer ¶ 25)), and relies on Davies to teach multiple booking center
servers distributed in a set of geographic locations and configured according
to geographic location requirements—“Davies shows a . . . plurality of
booking center servers being distributed within a . . . set of geographic
locations, wherein each of the first plurality of booking center servers is
configured based on one or more requirements of the respective geographic
location” (Final Act. 8 (citing Davies ¶ 11)). See Final Act. 6–10; Ans. 7–9.
Appellant contends that Oppenheimer, Davies, Long, and Slone do
not teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9–12; Reply
Br. 2–5. Specifically, Appellant contends that “[t]he Examiner continues to
cite to paragraph [0011] of Davies to supplement the other cited art, but this
citation merely discusses that servers reside at different locations” (Reply
Br. 3), and “Davies does not teach that the booking center server is
configured based on or more requirements of the respective geographic
location or even how Davies’[] directory servers are configured based on the
requirements of the respective geographic location” (Reply Br. 3–4). See
Appeal Br. 9–12; Reply Br. 2–5.
Appeal 2018-006929
Application 14/573,842

6
We agree with Appellant’s arguments that Davies (either alone or in
combination with Oppenheimer) does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitation—a “plurality of booking center servers . . . distributed within a . . .
set of geographic locations” where “each of the . . . plurality of booking
center servers is configured based on one or more requirements of the
respective geographic location” (claim 1). See Appeal Br. 10–12; Reply Br.
3–5.
Although Davies describes servers (directory servers) being
geographically distributed and configuring such servers (see Davies ¶ 11),
Davies does not describe any kind of geographic requirements (e.g., local
regulatory requirements—see Spec. ¶¶ 32–35). Accordingly, although
Davies describes geographically distributed servers, the Examiner cited
portions of Davies do not describe the servers being configured with
requirements based on the geographic location of the servers (i.e., with
particular geographic requirements).
The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the combination of
Oppenheimer and Davies (in combination with Long and Slone) at least
suggests particular geographic requirements. Without further explanation,
we are left to speculate, as did the Examiner, as to how Oppenheimer and
Davies (in combination with Long and Slone) describe the disputed features
of Appellant’s claim 1.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record to find that the
Examiner erred in concluding Oppenheimer, Davies, Long, and Slone teach
the geographically distributed booking center servers configured with
particular geographic requirements of Appellant’s claim 1. Independent
claim 6 includes limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 2, 3,
Appeal 2018-006929
Application 14/573,842

7
7, and 8 depend from and stand with claims 1 and 6, respectively.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1–3 and 6–8.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3
and 6–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3 and 6–8.

REVERSED