Ex Parte Grant, Jr. et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 9, 2012

10711705 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte HENRY W. GRANT, JR. and TYLER REYNOLDS ____________________ Appeal 2011-004122 Application 10/711,705 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004122 Application 10/711,705 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 11-14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23-26, and 37-42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE DECISION We REVERSE.1 BACKGROUND Appellants’ invention relates to financial systems, products or the like and more particularly to a method and system to evaluate illegal use of financial systems, products or the like, such as money laundering or similar schemes (Spec., para. [3]). Claim 11 is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 11. A method to evaluate anti-money laundering risk, comprising: identifying a person or other legal entity to be evaluated; selecting a country associated with the person or other legal entity; selecting at least one financial product or investment associated with the person or other legal entity; selecting a customer type associated with the person or other legal entity; determining a risk rating for evaluating anti- money laundering risk, using a computer, based on responses to predetermined criteria or questions 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed September 16, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed October 6, 2010). Appeal 2011-004122 Application 10/711,705 3 related to the country, the at least one financial product or investment and the customer type, wherein the determining the risk rating comprises: evaluating a sophistication of the person or other legal entity with respect to the at least one selected financial product or investment; and determining the at least one selected financial product or investment’s propensity for use for money laundering; and presenting the risk rating to a user. THE REJECTION The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 11-14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23-26, and 37-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lawrence (US 2002/0138407 A1, pub. Sep. 26, 2002). ANALYSIS Independent Claim 11and dependent claims 12-14, 16, and 37-41 We are persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ argument that “there is no teaching . . . in Lawrence of ‘determining the at least one selected financial product or investment’s propensity for use evaluating anti-money laundering risk,’ as recited in claim 11” (Br. 6). The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper and calls our attention to paragraph [0045] of Lawrence as disclosing this feature. Lawrence describes in paragraph [0045] that the GRM (global risk management) system calculates a risk quotient based on received information regarding “a position held by the account holder, the country in which the position is held, how long the position has been held, the strength of the position . . . [and] the propensity of people in similar positions to Appeal 2011-004122 Application 10/711,705 4 execute unlawful or unethical transactions. . . .” However, this information, including, in particular, information regarding the “propensity . . . to execute unlawful or unethical transactions,” relates to the particular account holder and that account holder’s propensity to execute unlawful or unethical transactions. Paragraph [0045] of Lawrence does not disclose that the risk evaluation includes “determining the at least one selected financial product or investment’s propensity for use for money laundering,” as recited in claim 11. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 as anticipated by Lawrence. We also will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 12-14, 16, and 37-41. Independent claim 17 and dependent claims 19, 20, 23-26, and 42 Independent claim 17 includes language substantially similar to claim 11. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 as anticipated by Lawrence for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 1. We also will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 19, 20, 23-26, and 42. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23-26, and 37-42 under 35 U.S.C§ 102(b) is reversed. REVERSED Klh