Ex Parte Mehrabi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2012

11774444 (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.
11/774,444 07/06/2007 Kevin Raumean Mehrabi 3223
61618 7590 11/13/2012
JAFARI LAW GROUP, P.C.
120 Vantis
STE 430
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
EXAMINER
BAHL, SANGEETA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
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 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4
___________ 5
6
Ex parte KEVIN RAUMEAN MEHRABI 7
___________ 8
9
Appeal 2011-002889 10
Application 11/774,444 11
Technology Center 3600 12
___________ 13
14
15
Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and 16
MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges. 17
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 18
DECISION ON APPEAL 19
Appeal 2011-002889
Application 11/774,444

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed May 24, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 24,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 2, 2010).
Kevin Raumean Mehrabi (Appellant) seeks review under 2
35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12, 14-27, and 3
31-47, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have 4
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 5
The Appellant invented a way of creating and promoting a subsection 6
such as a cause and processing payments for that subsection within a social 7
networking structure composed of multiple sections, and more specifically 8
where each subsection is complemented with tools that allow for the 9
promotion of the subsection within an external website, code permitting, and 10
specifically on the Facebook ™ platform (Specification, para. 0003). 11
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 12
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 13
paragraphing added]. 14
1. A method of creating a personal cause, comprising: 15
[1] generating 16
on a computer server 17
a webpage 18
for establishing a personal cause 19
for soliciting funds 20
directed to a designated individual account; 21
Appeal 2011-002889
Application 11/774,444

3
[2] receiving 1
by the computer server 2
a request 3
from a user 4
for said webpage; 5
[3] sending 6
by the computer server 7
said webpage to said user, 8
wherein said webpage includes 9
an input object 10
for receiving information 11
related to said personal cause; 12
[4] receiving 13
by the computer server 14
said personal cause information 15
from said user; 16
[5] adding 17
on the computer server 18
at least a portion 19
of said personal cause information 20
to a personal cause webpage; 21
and 22
[6] updating 23
on the computer server 24
a personal cause directory 25
to add said personal cause webpage. 26
27
Appeal 2011-002889
Application 11/774,444

4
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 1
Costin US 2002/0049816 Al Apr. 25, 2002
Schwartz US 2002/0091538 Al Jul. 11, 2002
Abburi US 2003/0147512 Al Aug. 7, 2003
Hui US 2005/0209932 Al Sep. 22, 2005
Theobald US 2006/0116992 Al Jun. 1, 2006
Baker US 2006/0200426 A1 Sep. 7, 2006
Denk US 2007/0250381 Al Oct. 25, 2007
ActiveGiving, Automated Donation Management, 2
http://www.active.com (2004) and ActiveGiving, Janus Charity 3
Challenge, http://www.active.com (2004) (hereafter collectively 4
“ActiveGiving”). 5
Alex’s Lemonade Stand (2006) (found at: 6
http://www.firstgiving.com/jordant) (hereafter “Alex’s Lemonade 7
Stand”). 8
Macy’s Wedding & Gift Registry (2006) (found at: 9
http://www.macy.weddingchannel.com) (hereafter “Macy’s Wedding 10
Registry”). 11
Arrington, Causes on Facebook Launches, TechCrunch (2007) (found 12
at: http://www.techcrunch.com) (hereafter “Arrington”). 13
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12, 14-17, 46 and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 14
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Schwartz, ActiveGiving, Macy’s Wedding 15
Registry, and Alex’s Lemonade Stand. 16
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 17
unpatentable over Schwartz, ActiveGiving, Macy’s Wedding Registry, 18
Alex’s Lemonade Stand, and Abburi. 19
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 20
Costin, Macy’s Wedding Registry, and Alex’s Lemonade Stand. 21
Appeal 2011-002889
Application 11/774,444

5
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 1
unpatentable over Costin, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade 2
Stand, and Hui. 3
Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 4
unpatentable over Costin, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade 5
Stand, and Denk. 6
Claims 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 7
over Costin, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade Stand, and 8
Theobald. 9
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 10
Costin, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade Stand, Denk, and 11
Baker. 12
Claims 32-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 13
over Costin, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade Stand, Denk, and 14
Burnett. 15
Claims 35-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 16
over Costin, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade Stand, Schwartz, 17
and Arrington. 18
Claim 41 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 19
Schwartz, ActiveGiving, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade 20
Stand, and Denk. 21
Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 22
Schwartz, ActiveGiving, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade 23
Stand, Denk, and Costin. 24
Appeal 2011-002889
Application 11/774,444

6
Claim 43 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 1
Schwartz, ActiveGiving, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade 2
Stand, Denk, Costin, and Theobald. 3
Claims 44 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 4
unpatentable over Schwartz, ActiveGiving, Macy’s Wedding Registry, 5
Alex’s Lemonade Stand, Denk, and Costin. 6
ISSUES 7
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on the breadth of the limitation 8
of a webpage for establishing a personal cause for soliciting funds directed 9
to a designated individual account and whether Macy’s is within the scope 10
of that limitation. 11
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 12
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 13
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 14
Facts Related to the Prior Art 15
Schwartz 16
01. Schwartz is directed to conducting an efficient fundraising 17
campaign over a wide area network, such as the Internet. 18
Schwartz’s invention increases the efficiency of a fundraising 19
campaign by providing a fast, convenient and reliable means for 20
conducting the campaign. Schwartz, para. 0001. 21
02. A solicitor refers to a person or an organization soliciting a 22
potential donor or an organization for a charitable donation. A 23
Appeal 2011-002889
Application 11/774,444

7
donor refers to a person or an organization that makes a charitable 1
donation. Schwartz, para. 0028. 2
03. Registration is carried out on one or more registration web 3
pages. The web page, or pages linked to the web page, is 4
configured to receive information, such as name, age, address, and 5
telephone number of the registrant. The registration web pages 6
also provide information regarding registration fees, donation 7
levels, gifts and prizes, and allow the registrant to create a user 8
name and a password. In one embodiment, the page contains 9
information about prior donors such as name, amount of donation, 10
etc. In one embodiment, the page contains motivational 11
information about the organization, the charitable cause, and/or 12
personalized requests from the solicitor. The solicitor may make a 13
request by an email in which case, the email may include a link to 14
the solicitor's personalized web page. Schwartz, para. 0038. 15
ActiveGiving 16
04. ActiveGiving is directed to an online “donation” page, which 17
allows you to invite folks to donate money directly to your cause. 18
While this online process is more effective, less time consuming, 19
and cheaper than raising money the old fashioned way, it still does 20
not leverage the true power of email and the Internet. To do so, 21
you must take advantage of the product’s “Fundraising” feature. 22
The Fundraising option goes beyond simply accepting donations. 23
With just a click of the mouse, you can maximize your reach and 24
funds substantially. You can easily invite others to HELP YOU 25
Appeal 2011-002889
Application 11/774,444

8
raise even more funds for your cause. Friends and family can 1
create their own personalized version of your “ActiveGiving” 2
page, sending out links to all of their friends and family. If each 3
of your 30 “fundraisers” invites 30 people to donate to your cause, 4
you have increased your “reach” to 900 people!!! And funds are 5
donated on behalf of the “fundraiser,” going right into your 6
account. ActiveGiving 1. 7
Macy’s Wedding Registry 8
05. Macy’s Wedding Registry is directed to a web page allowing 9
readers to sign in for a specific bridal registry to purchase gifts for 10
the wedding couple. 11
Abburi 12
06. Abburi is directed to messaging systems and methods. Abburi, 13
para. 0001. 14
07. Abburi describes both text and audio as known messaging 15
vehicles. Abburi, apras. 0001 and 0002. 16
ANALYSIS 17
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12, 14-17, 46 and 47 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 18
as unpatentable over Schwartz, ActiveGiving, Macy’s Wedding Registry, and 19
Alex’s Lemonade Stand. 20
We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that Macy’s does not 21
teach a webpage for establishing a personal cause for soliciting funds 22
directed to a designated individual account. Appellant contends that (1) 23
Macy’s does not teach a webpage for establishing a personal cause; (2) 24
Appeal 2011-002889
Application 11/774,444

9
Macy’s does not teach soliciting funds; and (3) Macy’s does not teach that 1
the funds are directed to a designated individual account . App. Br. 16-20. 2
The Examiner found that a bridal registry is a cause that is personal to 3
the wedding couple and is a solicitation for funds to purchase gifts for the 4
couple. As an account is no more than a record directed to some specific 5
entity, a bridal registry for a bridal couple is a customer account for that 6
couple. Ans. 6. We agree with these findings and adopt them as our own. 7
FF 05. 8
We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the remaining 9
applied references do not teach a webpage for establishing a personal cause 10
for soliciting funds directed to a designated individual account. Appellant 11
contends that (1) Schwartz does not teach a webpage for establishing a 12
personal cause; and (2) Schwartz does not teach that funds are directed to a 13
designated individual account. App. Br. 20-28. 14
The Examiner applied Macy’s for these limitations. Ans. 6. We agree 15
with these findings and adopt them as our own. FF 05. 16
Appellant is arguing the meaning of a personal cause, solicitation of 17
funds, and an individual account. We find Appellant’s arguments to not be 18
commensurate with the scope of the claim and its terms. These terms are 19
very broad and are not lexicographically defined to narrow their scope. 20
Further, there is no doubt that a registry is a solicitation, is personal to a 21
couple, and is related to that couple’s customer account. To the extent the 22
claims narrow the solicitation, causal nature of the solicitation, and nature of 23
the account, such limitations are interpretable only to the human mind and 24
Appeal 2011-002889
Application 11/774,444

10
therefore cannot distinguish the claim over the art. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1
1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 2
We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the level of 3
ordinary skill in the art had not yet been established. App. Br. 29-31. See 4
Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence 5
of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to 6
reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a 7
need for testimony is not shown’”). 8
Claims 18 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 9
Schwartz, ActiveGiving, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade Stand, 10
and Abburi. 11
Claims 18 and 19 simply recite sending text or audio messages as a 12
vehicle for notification. We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument 13
that Abburi is unrelated to solicitation. App. Br. 31-32. The Examiner 14
simply applied Abburi to show the notoriety of such simple vehicles as text 15
and audio for notification. Ans. 12-13. See also FF 06 & 07. Certainly, 16
such vehicles were widely known to be used for informing a bridal registry 17
of desired purchases by web or phone. 18
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Costin, 19
Macy's Wedding Registry, and Alex's Lemonade Stand. 20
Claims 21 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 21
Costin, Macy's Wedding Registry, Alex's Lemonade Stand, and Hui. 22
Appeal 2011-002889
Application 11/774,444

11
Claims 26 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 1
Costin, Macy's Wedding Registry, Alex's Lemonade Stand, and Denk . 2
Claims 23-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 3
Costin, Macy's Wedding Registry, Alex's Lemonade Stand, and Theobald . 4
Claim 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Costin, 5
Macy's Wedding Registry, Alex's Lemonade Stand, Denk, and Baker. 6
Claims 32-34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 7
Costin, Macy's Wedding Registry, Alex's Lemonade Stand, Denk, and 8
Burnett. 9
Claims 35-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 10
Costin, Macy's Wedding Registry, Alex's Lemonade Stand, Schwartz, and 11
Arrington. 12
Claim 41 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schwartz, 13
ActiveGiving, Macy's Wedding Registry, Alex's Lemonade Stand, and Denk. 14
Claim 42 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schwartz, 15
ActiveGiving, Macy's Wedding Registry, Alex's Lemonade Stand, Denk, and 16
Costin. 17
Claim 43 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schwartz, 18
ActiveGiving, Macy's Wedding Registry, Alex's Lemonade Stand, Denk, 19
Costin, and Theobald. 20
Claims 44 and 45 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 21
Schwartz, ActiveGiving, Macy's Wedding Registry, Alex's Lemonade Stand, 22
Denk, and Costin. 23
Appeal 2011-002889
Application 11/774,444

12
Appellant repeats the arguments in support of claim 1 in support of these 1
claims and we find those arguments equally unpersuasive as to these claims. 2
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 3
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12, 14-17, 46 and 47 under 35 4
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schwartz, ActiveGiving, Macy’s 5
Wedding Registry, and Alex’s Lemonade Stand is proper. 6
The rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 7
unpatentable over Schwartz, ActiveGiving, Macy’s Wedding Registry, 8
Alex’s Lemonade Stand, and Abburi is proper. 9
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 10
Costin, Macy’s Wedding Registry, and Alex’s Lemonade Stand is proper. 11
The rejection of claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 12
unpatentable over Costin, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade 13
Stand, and Hui is proper. 14
The rejection of claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 15
unpatentable over Costin, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade 16
Stand, and Denk is proper. 17
The rejection of claims 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 18
over Costin, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade Stand, and 19
Theobald is proper. 20
The rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 21
Costin, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade Stand, Denk, and 22
Baker is proper. 23
Appeal 2011-002889
Application 11/774,444

13
The rejection of claims 32-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 1
over Costin, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade Stand, Denk, and 2
Burnett is proper. 3
The rejection of claims 35-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 4
over Costin, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’'s Lemonade Stand, Schwartz, 5
and Arrington is proper. 6
The rejection of claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 7
Schwartz, ActiveGiving, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade 8
Stand, and Denk is proper. 9
The rejection of claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 10
Schwartz, ActiveGiving, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade 11
Stand, Denk, and Costin is proper. 12
The rejection of claim 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 13
Schwartz, ActiveGiving, Macy’s Wedding Registry, Alex’s Lemonade 14
Stand, Denk, Costin, and Theobald is proper. 15
The rejection of claims 44 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 16
unpatentable over Schwartz, ActiveGiving, Macy’s Wedding Registry, 17
Alex’s Lemonade Stand, Denk, and Costin is proper. 18
DECISION 19
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12, 14-27, and 31-47 is affirmed. 20
Appeal 2011-002889
Application 11/774,444

14
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 1
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 2
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). 3
4
AFFIRMED 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
mls 15