Ex Parte Nelms

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 14, 2013

10700686 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID W. NELMS ____________ Appeal 2011-008229 Application 10/700,686 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before: BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL W. KIM, and JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008229 Application 10/700,686 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-5, 8-13, 16 and 171. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. The invention relates generally to consumer rebate systems and more particularly to a rate structure for cash value based consumer rebate or award systems (Spec., para. [0001]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A system for determining an award amount accrued to a consumer due to at least one transaction, the transaction involving the consumer’s use of a financial alternative to currency to purchase goods or services, the system comprising: a database containing a data record of the transaction and an account record for the consumer, the account record including a dollar-value sum which includes the transaction amount; and a computing device coupled to the database for accessing at least one of the records and for calculating the award amount, from either the dollar-value sum or the transaction amount, by applying thereto an award formula comprising a selected award rate from an inverted tier structure comprising a first tier corresponding to a first value range of goods or services purchased and providing a first award rate and a second tier corresponding to a second value range of goods or services purchased and providing a second award rate, wherein the minimum of the second value range is higher than the maximum of the first value range and the second award 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed September 20, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February 28, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 27, 2010). App App unpa obvi [a] tr finan “calc trans Br. 4 creat Colu an ou perc eal 2011-0 lication 10 rate is lo being sto Claims 1 tentable o We REV We are p ous “[an] a ansaction cial altern ulating [a action am -6). Indep ed the foll mns (1) an tstanding entage pai 08229 /700,686 wer than t red in the -5, 8-13, ver Hucal ERSE. ersuaded ccount rec amount,” ative to cu n] award a ount,” as r endent cla owing cha d (3) are n balance eq d off in co he first aw computin THE R 16 and 17 (US 5,933 AN the Exami ord includ “the transa rrency to mount, fro ecited in in im 10 rec rt on page umbers ta ual to an lumn (1), a 3 ard rate, g device. EJECTIO are rejecte ,817, iss. A ALYSIS ner erred i ing a doll ction invo purchase g m either t dependen ites a simi 10 of the ken from initial bala nd colum the inverte N d under 35 ug. 3, 19 n asserting ar-value su lving the c oods or se he dollar-v t claim 1 ( lar aspect. Examiner Table 1 of nce of $2, ns (4) and d tier stru U.S.C. § 99). that Huca m which onsumer’ rvices,” an alue sum App. Br. 3 The Exam ’s Answer Hucal, co 000 minus (5) are the cture 103(a) as l renders includes s use of a d or the -5; Reply iner : lumn (2) i the incentive s Appeal 2011-008229 Application 10/700,686 4 rates and incentive cash back calculated by the Examiner as being provided to the consumer in the form of lower interest payments based on the outstanding balance. The Examiner asserts that column (2) corresponds to the recited “account record including a dollar-value sum which includes [a] transaction amount,” and that column (5) corresponds to the recited award amount (Ans. 10-11). However, the final outstanding balance in column (2) is not “[a] transaction [amount] involving the consumer’s use of a financial alternative to currency to purchase goods or services,” as recited in independent claim 1. The initial balance of $2,000 is a sum of previous transactions, and thus could correspond to a transaction amount. However, the initial balance of $2,000 is not used to calculate the incentives set forth in columns (4) and (5). The payoff amount in column (1) could also correspond to a transaction amount. However, again, the payoff amount is not used to calculate the incentives set forth in columns (4) and (5). The final outstanding balance in column (2) is calculated using the transaction amount in column (1), but is not itself “[a] transaction [amount] involving the consumer’s use of a financial alternative to currency to purchase goods or services,” as recited in independent claim 1. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejections of independent claim 10, and dependent claims 2-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 16 and 17. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 8-13, 16 and 17 is REVERSED. REVERSED Appeal 2011-008229 Application 10/700,686 5 mls