Ex Parte Kerley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 17, 2019

12450528 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/450,528 09/29/2009
59364 7590 01/17/2019
SCULLY, SCOTT, MURPHY & PRESSER, P.C.
400 GARDEN CITY PLAZA
SUITE 300
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
Paul Kerley
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
30743 (XA4041/USw) 7331
EXAMINER
GURMU, MULUEMEBET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/17/2019 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 PAUL KERLEY, KEVIN MARY O'LEARY,
KILLIAN COLLERAN, CECIL HA YES, and LIAM GRIFFIN
Appeal2018-005523 1
Application 12/450,528
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's decision rejecting all pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify DE TICA PA TENT LIMITED as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2018-005523
Application 12/450,528
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to "monitoring of activities such as
financial transaction processing" for the purposes of "financial stability,
transparent auditing and control, and the detection of money laundering."
Spec. 1:5-10. Claims 25--42 are pending. App. Br. 17-23. Claim 25, the
sole independent claim, is reproduced below for reference ( emphasis added):
25. A fraud linking system for identifying links between
determined fraud events detected in external systems, each
external system having at least one fraud detection engine, the
fraud linking system comprising:
an external interface configured to receive alerts
reporting determined fraud events detected in the external
systems by the respective at least one fraud detection engine;
a storage device configured to store determined historical
fraud events in a database including the received determined
fraud events in the alerts;
a processor comprising hardware configured to provide:
an alert classifier arranged to implement a plurality of
match methods for detecting links between a received alert from
one of the external systems and one or more stored determined
historical fraud events or another received alert from another one
of the external systems, each match method implementing
different matching criteria, the alert classifier thereby generating
and outputting a respective score for each match method
representative of the extent of matching with one or more
identified determined historical fraud events or another received
alert; and
a voting engine for applying a set of weightings to the
scores generated by the classifier for each of the match methods
and for determining that there is a link with an identified
determined historical fraud event or another received alert if a
combination of the weighted scores exceeds a predetermined
threshold.
2
Appeal2018-005523
Application 12/450,528
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Sipple
Howard
Cook
US 5,140,685 Aug. 18, 1992
US 2004/0213437 Al Oct. 28, 2004
US 2006/0149674 Al July 6, 2006
Claims 25, 26, 35, and 40-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Cook and Howard. Final Act. 2.
Claims 27-34 and 36-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Cook, Howard, and Sipple. Final Act. 9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections
and the issues raised by Appellants. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50; see also MPEP
§ 1213.02 ("The Board's primary role is to review the adverse decision as
presented by the Examiner, and not to conduct its own separate examination
of the claims.").
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 25,
because "there is no reasonable interpretation of 'alert reporting determined
fraud event' in the claim [equivalent to] the generic raw data or identity
records that are received in Cook." Br. 6. Specifically, Appellants contend
that, "instead of teaching receiving alerts reporting determined fraud events,
Cook teaches using information that it receives to determine the fraud in the
first instance," whereas "in the claimed invention, the input to the
3
Appeal2018-005523
Application 12/450,528
system/method are alerts representing previously determined fraud." Id. at
9.
We are persuaded the Examiner errs. Claim 1 recites a system for
linking "determined fraud events detected in external systems [ comprising]
an external interface configured to receive alerts reporting determined fraud
events detected in the external systems." Cook is directed to receiving
records from external client institutions, and then calculating and returning a
fraud score for the record. See Cook Abstract, ,r 29. We agree with
Appellants that Cook's received records are not the recited "determined
fraud events detected in external systems," because Cook receives all
records without respect to any fraud determination. See Cook ,r,r 9, 29, and
Fig. 1; see also Br. 6. To the extent Cook teaches determined fraud events,
Appellants are correct in contending Cook's fraud events are determined
"from the system and not received from an external system" as claimed. Br.
8; see also Cook ,r,r 80, 117, and Fig. 2.
The Examiner does not cite Howard for the disputed limitation, nor
does the Examiner explain why one of ordinary skill would modify Cook, so
that the system receives determined fraud events detected in external
systems. See Final Act. 3. Rather, the Examiner merely quotes portions of
Cook without explaining how one of ordinary skill would fit the disparate
paragraphs together. See Final Act. 28-29; see also Ans. 2-3. Thus, the
Examiner has not shown the claim limitation is obvious in view of the cited
references. "[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious
merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
known in the prior art." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418
(2007).
4
Appeal2018-005523
Application 12/450,528
We are persuaded the Examiner's rejection is in error. Accordingly,
we are constrained by the record to reverse the rejection of independent
claim 25, and the claims that depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 25--42 is reversed.
REVERSED
5