Ex Parte Mahone et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 4, 2012

11141369 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte SARALYN M. MAHONE, MATTHEW J. GILBERT,
THOMAS E. STEPP, ARTHUR L. SPRINGER, and
JOHN HANS VAN ARKEL
________________

Appeal 2010-006492
Application 11/141,369
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and
BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006492
Application 11/141,369

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1 – 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to fraud detection in remote access of data
services. Spec. ¶ [0002]. In one embodiment, the number of data calls for
access to a data network is tracked over a predetermined time period, and the
cumulative duration of the data calls is determined. Thereafter, a
determination is made as to whether the number of the data calls and the
cumulative duration satisfy, respectively, a first threshold and a second
threshold. A potential fraudulent use of the account is determined, if the
thresholds are satisfied. See Abstract.
Exemplary Claim (Emphasis Added)
1. A method for detecting unauthorized use of data services, the
method comprising the steps of:
tracking number of data calls, corresponding to a host
identifier, for access to a data network over a predetermined
time period;
determining a cumulative duration of the data calls;
determining whether the number of the data calls and the
cumulative duration satisfy, respectively, a first threshold and a
second threshold; and
indicating a potential fraudulent use of the account, if the
thresholds are satisfied.
Appeal 2010-006492
Application 11/141,369

3
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1 – 5, 7 – 11, 13 – 17, and 19 – 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Caslin (US 2002/0188712 A1;
Dec. 12, 2002). Ans. 3 – 4.
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Caslin and Boccuzzi (US 2004/0153382 A1; Aug.
5, 2004; filed Jan. 31, 2003). Ans. 5.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Caslin discloses “determining
whether the number of the data calls and the cumulative duration satisfy,
respectively, a first threshold and a second threshold; and indicating a
potential fraudulent use of the account, if the thresholds are satisfied,” as
recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Caslin, which is directed to a
communications system with fraud monitoring, discloses all of the
recitations of claim 1. See Ans. 3 (citing Caslin ¶¶ [0116], [0118], [0121],
and [0131]). In particular, the Examiner finds that Caslin discloses
determining whether a number of thresholds are satisfied and indicating
fraud alerts based on those threshold satisfaction determinations. See Ans. 6.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred, arguing that Caslin’s
disclosure “of separate thresholds for different events generating separate
alarms does not meet the language of the claimed subject matter requiring a
single determination of potential fraudulent use of data services based on the
combination of two thresholds . . . being satisfied.” App. Br. 6. Appellants
Appeal 2010-006492
Application 11/141,369

4
acknowledge that claim 1 does not “explicitly recite a ‘single’ determination
or a ‘combination’ of thresholds . . . .” App. Br. 6 – 7. However, Appellants
argue that the clear language of claim 1 conveys these requirements because
claim 1 recites determining whether two thresholds are met and further
recites “indicating a potential fraudulent use of the account, if the thresholds
are satisfied.” App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2. In other words, Appellants
argue that the disputed recitation requires indicating, through a single
indication, a potential fraudulent use of the account, if and only if both
thresholds are satisfied.
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim
1 and therefore are not persuasive of error. The claim recitations do not
preclude providing multiple indications of potential fraudulent use of the
account if the thresholds are satisfied. The claim recitations also do not
preclude providing an indication of a potential fraudulent use of the account
when only one of the thresholds is satisfied. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that a broad, but reasonable interpretation of “determining
whether the number of the data calls and the cumulative duration satisfy,
respectively, a first threshold and a second threshold; and indicating a
potential fraudulent use of the account, if the thresholds are satisfied”
includes “satisfying a first threshold and issuing a fraud alert [and then] . . .
satisfying a second threshold and issuing a fraud alert,” as disclosed by
Caslin. Ans. 6.
The Examiner correctly relies on Caslin to disclose the disputed
recitations because Caslin discloses applying multiple fraud monitoring
algorithms and outputting a list of the generated alarms, which are specific
to each algorithm. See, e.g., Caslin ¶¶ [0116], [0118], [0121], [0130], and
Appeal 2010-006492
Application 11/141,369

5
[0131]. In particular, some of the algorithms of Caslin, such as the
algorithm used to generate a Call Velocity Based on Location type of alarm,
are directed to determining whether the number of data calls satisfies a first
threshold. See Caslin ¶ [0116]; see also Caslin ¶ [0118]. Other disclosed
algorithms, such as the algorithm used to generate an Aggregate Duration
alarm, are directed to determining whether the cumulative duration satisfies
a second threshold. See Caslin ¶ [0121]. Since Caslin outputs a list of alarms
by applying these fraud monitoring algorithms to generate their particular
alarm types when their respective thresholds are met, Caslin discloses
determining whether the number of the data calls and the cumulative
duration satisfy first and second respective thresholds. When both thresholds
are met, Caslin generates alarms for each of the fraud monitoring algorithms,
and thus Caslin also discloses indicating a potential fraudulent use of the
account (e.g., a Call Velocity Based on Location type of alarm and an
Aggregate Duration alarm) when the thresholds are satisfied. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that Caslin discloses “determining whether the
number of the data calls and the cumulative duration satisfy, respectively, a
first threshold and a second threshold; and indicating a potential fraudulent
use of the account, if the thresholds are satisfied,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and of
claims 2 – 22, which are not argued separately with sufficient specificity.
See App. Br. 7 – 8.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 22 is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-006492
Application 11/141,369

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj