Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 13, 2012

11965121 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2012)

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. 11/965,121 12/27/2007 Alexander A. Liu P00348-US-UTIL (M01.082) 2936 28062 7590 11/13/2012 BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC 50 LOCUST AVENUE NEW CANAAN, CT 06840 EXAMINER NGUYEN, TIEN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3694 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/13/2012 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 ALEXANDER A. LIU and RON HYNES ____________________ Appeal 2011-000613 Application 11/965,121 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-000613 Application 11/965,121 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. The claims are directed to systems and methods to select an appropriate credit migration path for a consumer. (Spec. 1:2-4). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: determining supplemental information about a consumer associated with a first level of credit availability; automatically selecting for the consumer, by a credit migration path selection engine, one of a plurality of potential credit migration paths based on the supplemental information, wherein each potential credit migration path: begins at the first level of credit availability, includes a predetermined sequence of a plurality of intermediate credit products of a plurality of different types, and ends at a level of credit availability higher than the first level, and further wherein a first potential credit migration path includes at least one intermediate credit product of a first type and a second potential credit migration path does not include any intermediate credit product of the first type; and transmitting to the consumer an offer for an intermediate credit product based on the selected credit migration path. REJECTIONS Claims 1-8 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bard (US 2003/0046222 A1, pub. Mar. 6, 2003). Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bard and Knox (US 2002/0194122 A1, pub. Dec. 19, 2002). Appeal 2011-000613 Application 11/965,121 3 FINDINGS OF FACT We find the following facts by a preponderance of evidence. FF 1. Bard discloses offering credit products to customers from a plurality of products, each of which may have different parameters, such as being associated with other types of financial or credit products, or requiring different numbers of on-time payments. (para. [0112]). FF 2. Bard discloses offers for customers “may vary for each customer based on the product cell associated with that customer.” (para. [0066]). FF 3. Bard discloses each product cell includes different parameters associated with a credit account, such as credit limits, interest rates, trial period, maintenance and penalty fees, and credit limit increase values. (para. [0051]). FF 4. Bard discloses starter credit card accounts may include interest rates of zero percent and reduced credit limits. (para. [0008]). FF 5. Bard discloses a variety of “tracts” to select from, representing various graduation roadmaps the customer may obtain, such as one tract having an additional trial period. (para. [0114]). FF 6. Bard discloses two processes to sell credit to a customer: a front end process if the customer has never applied for credit or has never been rejected, and a downsell process if the customer was previously rejected for a credit card. (para. [0063]). FF 7. Bard discloses different product terms offered to each category of customer in Table IV, with variations in the credit limit, interest rate, and fees. Appeal 2011-000613 Application 11/965,121 4 OPINION Claims 1-6 and 11-15 Appellants argue claims 1-6 and 11-15 together as a group (App. Br. 9), so we select representative claim 1 to decide the appeal of these claims, with remaining independent claims 11, 14, 15, and dependent claims 2-6, 12, and 13 standing or falling with claim 1. See, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that Bard does not disclose a plurality of pre-determined potential path sequences each including different types of products. App. Br. 10. Bard discloses products selected for customers are chosen from a variety of products, each potentially requiring a different number of on-time payments (FF 1). Bard further discloses selecting products from product cells (FF 2), where each product cell includes products with different parameters such as credit limit, rates, and fees (FF 3). Therefore, Bard discloses different products which make up a plurality of different product offerings from which a product is selected for a consumer. For this reason, we affirm the rejection of claims 1- 6 and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 7-9 Dependent claim 7 recites, inter alia, “associating the consumer with a pre-paid card account” as well as transferring funds out of, and to re-load, the pre-paid card account, and tracking usage of the pre-paid card account. We are persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that Bard fails to disclose or suggest tracking pre-paid card account usage. App. Br. 11. The Examiner directs us to paragraphs [0005], [0069], and [0070] of Bard to demonstrate that the “[s]tarter credit card account in Bard is known as a pre- Appeal 2011-000613 Application 11/965,121 5 paid account ....” Ans. 5, 11. In these three paragraphs, we find Bard discloses that a starter credit card may have lower interest rates and reduced credit limits (FF 4), but we do not find a disclosure of a pre-paid card, as required. For this reason, we reverse the rejection of claim 7, and of dependent claims 8 and 9. Claim 16 Dependent claim 16 recites, inter alia, that the first potential credit migration path comprises a first set having a first number of different intermediate credit product types and the second potential credit migration path comprises a second set having a second number of different intermediate credit product types, the first number being different than the second number. We are persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that Bard does not disclose two potential credit migration paths having different numbers of intermediate credit product types. App. Br. 11-12. The Examiner directs us to paragraphs [0112] and [0114] (Ans. 5-6), [0052], [0053], and [0063], as well as Table IV and Figures 3 and 4 (Ans. 11-12) of Bard as disclosing this feature. However, these portions of Bard disclose that a customer is directed to either a “Frontsell” or “Downsell” path, depending on whether they have previously been rejected for credit (FF 6), and various terms for a single credit product to be offered to customers in each type of front-sell and down- sell category (FF 7). Bard therefore discloses products with different terms selected to be offered to a customer, but not different numbers of products in different migration paths, as required. For this reason, we reverse the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Appeal 2011-000613 Application 11/965,121 6 Claim 10 We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ assertion that the Examiner’s reasoning for the combination of Bard and Knox “falls far short” of what is required (App. Br. 12). The Examiner found Bard did not disclose a computer-implemented method, but Knox does (Ans. 8), and that modifying the Bard system to include the computer-implemented system of Knox would be obvious “in order to process the starter credit card account more efficiently.” (Ans. 9). It is well-known that computers are used to make manual processes more efficient, so we find the Examiner’s rationale for the combination was reasonable. For this reason, we affirm the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-6 and 10-15 are AFFIRMED. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 7-9 and 16 are REVERSED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART mls