Ex Parte HokeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 201613442193 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/442,193 04/09/2012 Amy Beth Hoke BT-066 7385 43076 7590 12/02/2016 MARK D. SARALINO (GENERAL) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP 1621 EUCLID AVENUE, NINETEENTH FLOOR EXAMINER POLLOCK, GREGORY A CLEVELAND, OH 44115-2191 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3695 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2016 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): ipdocket @ rennerotto. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AMY BETH HOKE Appeal 2014-009416 Application 13/442,193 Technology Center 3600 Before, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE1 Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—14, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Appellant identifies Bottomline Technologies (DE) Inc. as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2014-009416 Application 13/442,193 THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant claims a an electronic payment and remittance system which assesses a variable transaction fee to each vendor and provides each vendor with a different level of service based on aggregate transaction fees paid. (Spec. 1,11. 4—7). Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for making payments from each payer of a community of payers to each vendor of a community of vendors, assessing a variable transaction fee to each vendor, and providing to each vendor one of multiple levels of services based on aggregate transaction fees, the system comprising: a payment application comprising instructions stored in a computer readable memory and executed by a processor, the instructions comprising: for each payment initiated by a payer to a transaction vendor, the transaction vendor being one of the vendors within the payer vendor group associated with the payer: determining a transaction fee: looking up, in a database, a transaction fee percentage associated with the transaction vendor; determining the product of an amount of the payment multiplied by the transaction fee percentage, such product being the transaction fee; and for each vendor, assigning the vendor to one of at least three service tiers by: calculating a vendor aggregate transaction fee, the vendor aggregate transaction fee being the sum of each transaction fee applied to each payment initiated by any payer to the vendor during a predetermined period of time; assigning the vendor to a first of the at least three service tiers if the aggregate transaction fee is lower than a first threshold amount; assigning the vendor to a second of the at least three service tiers if the aggregate transaction fee is greater then the first threshold amount and less than a second threshold amount; and Appeal 2014-009416 Application 13/442,193 assigning the vendor to a third of the at least three service tiers if the aggregate transaction fee is greater than the second threshold amount; providing to each vendor a menu object for rendering on a vendor system, the menu object rendering controls for multiple functions available for selection: the quantity of functions available for selection in the menu object provided to each vendor in the first service tier being fewer than the quantity of functions available for selection in the menu object provided to each vendor in the second service tier and the third service tier; and the quantity of functions available for selection in the menu object provided to each vendor in the second service tier being fewer than the quantity of functions available for selection in the menu object provided to each vendor in the third service tier. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Yamaguchi et al. (“Yamaguchi”) US 2003/0046225 A1 Mar. 6, 2003 Smith at al. (“Smith”) US 2006/0059087 Al Mar. 16, 2006 Sims et al. (“Sims”) US 2010/0274714 Al Oct. 28, 2010 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yamaguchi and Smith. The Examiner rejected claims 2—5, 7—10, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yamaguchi, Smith, and Sims. Appeal 2014-009416 Application 13/442,193 FINDINGS OF FACT We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence. 1. Yamaguchi discloses a user inputs a “sum of money of the fund transfer” along with other data for the transfer. (Yamaguchi para. 52). 2. Yamaguchi discloses a fee for a funds transfer is determined based on input variables provided by a user and the use of a fee database established by a bank. {Id. para. 53). 3. Smith discloses that tiers and scaling factors based on accumulated data about transactions “allows a payment processor to decrease the risk of processing payments by charging payment processing rates that reflect the actual risk of processing payments for a merchant.” (Smith para. 66). 4. Smith discloses determining net revenue to the card processor “for determining whether or not to accept a merchant based upon merchant account data.” {Id. at para. 35). 5. The Specification describes by example vendor systems in Figure 3 at elements 61 A, 6IB, and 61C. (Spec. 43,11. 27—29). 6. The Specification describes that vendor systems include: i) a web browser 61 a on a workstation or other computer which accesses system 10 via a web connection; ii) a tablet computer 61 b such as an iPad which accesses the system 10 utilizing a custom client application on the tablet; and iii) other mobile devices 61c such as smart phones which access the system 10 utilizing a custom client application on the mobile device, in each case over permutations of the internet, wired or wireless internet service provider networks, and a local area network. (Spec. 17,11. 9-16). Appeal 2014-009416 Application 13/442,193 7. The Specification describes “a template for vendors in Tier 1 is represented as it would be graphically rendered on a vendor system 61 (Figure 3). The template shows functions that are available to Tier 2 and Tier 3 vendors as unavailable to Tier 1 vendors, such functions being, strictly for exemplary purposes, reporting of 15 scheduled payments and all invoicing functions.” (Spec. 44,11. 11—15). 8. Appellant’s Figure 18A shows an example template of functions available, or unavailable, to a merchant, as shown below: Payment Network Reporting Recent: Activity View Payments Received xxxxx Scheduled-Payments Messages -ftwefe&f XXXXX Manage-Invoiccs Upload Invoices Appellant’s Figure 18A showing a menu object that provides functions rendered on a vendor system, including functions not available based on tier. 9. Yamaguchi discloses menu objects at browser interfaces in Figure 9A and 9B, shown below: Appeal 2014-009416 Application 13/442,193 FIG. 9A FIG. 98 * " _____ ..._______ V ^ ru * V ^ i. 1 ' c is s 7 *' ^ e v h ^ ' ysf N' \ ' V ^ V.N »v .* ' v’‘\ ? -s \ ' % < v O' c\ VN ^ ? \ rtjf; w v v s i' Xs" s\: vSSJ, v v SK ^ \X •* .. F' ’V' o 'R* ,^s. •v ■> -i ....ttr v ,.n \\ vA vCopy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation