Ex Parte Rose et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 20, 2016

12561125 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/561, 125 09/16/2009 Teresa Rose 39290 7590 10/21/2016 DUANE MORRIS LLP - DC 505 9th Street Suite 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2166 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. BBTOl 008 CIP 1701 EXAMINER GREGG, MARY M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3694 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 10/21/2016 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 TERESA ROSE, PA TRICIA KINNEY, DOUGLAS JOE ZICKAFOOSE, BRIAN NEWLIN, JENNIFER WEA VER, and STEVEN PICARD Appeal2014-007734 1 Application 12/561,125 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 134 and 6. The invention relates generally to opening a financial account. Spec. para. 6. 1 The Appellants identify Branch Banking & Trust Co. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2014-007734 Application 12/561,125 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of interfacing with a financial institution using a computer interface to open an account at the financial institution, the method comprising the steps of: (a) receiving an interface request from a customer to open the account at the financial institution after the customer has reached, via a path through a computer network, a predetermined webpage for the financial institution; (b) receiving identification information from the customer; ( c) authenticating the customer based at least in part on an evaluation of a predetermined client identification profile ("CIP"); ( d) determining a first and a second entity for the customer; ( e) determining if the customer passes the authentication based on individual authentication checks of the determined first entity and the determined second entity and if not stopping the interfacing procedure; (f) performing a fraud detection analysis on the customer and stopping the interfacing procedure if the customer does not pass the fraud detection analysis; (g) performing an identity verification analysis on the customer and stopping the interfacing procedure if the customer does not pass the identity verification analysis; and (h) performing an account approval process to thereby open the account. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Golan (US 2005/0097320 Al, pub. May 5, 2005) and Dilip (US 2002/0091635 Al, pub. July 11, 2002). We AFFIRM. 2 Appeal2014-007734 Application 12/561,125 ANALYSIS Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 2 together as a group, so we select claim 1 as representative. Appeal Br. 7, 11, 13-14. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that Golan does not disclose "entities," and only discloses only the singular "user," and, thus, does not disclose "determining a first and a second entity for the customer," as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 7-9. The claim terms "customer" and "entities" are not defined by Appellants, but the Specification describes, by example, that "one entity associated with the customer may be identified as the name of a 'single' or 'primary' applicant associated with customer. Another entity may be identified as the name of a 'secondary' or 'joint' applicant associated with the customer." Spec. para. 13. We also note the ordinary and customary meaning of "customer" as "a person or entity having an account with a bank or on whose behalf the bank has agreed to collect items." MERRIAM- WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY, available at http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/customer, last visited Oct. 14, 2016. We, thus, construe a "customer" as encompassing a joint ownership made up of "entities," where each entity may be one or more individuals. Golan discloses opening accounts (Golan para. 23), and authenticating multiple parties in a transaction (Id. para. 2), but does not disclose in any detail the authentication of more than a single "user" (see, e.g., Golan para. 93). Dilip, however, discloses: [T]he terms "account holder" "customer" "user" and "client" ' ' ' are interchangeable. "Account holder" refers to any person having access to an account, such as a financial account at a 3 Appeal2014-007734 Application 12/561,125 financial institution. A particular account may have multiple account holders (e.g., a joint checking account having husband and wife as account holders or a corporate account identifying several corporate employees as account holders. Dilip para. 36. Dilip also discloses an authentication process. See Dilip para. 122 et seq. We are persuaded that the ordinary artisan would recognize, in view ofDilip's disclosure of authenticating joint accounts, that Golan's account opening authentication process would apply to both individuals when a customer opening an account is a joint entity. " [A] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that there is no mention in Dilip of a procedure for an account opening process. Appeal Br. 9-11; see also Reply Br. 1-2. As an initial matter, Appellants' argument is misplaced, as Golan is cited for the account opening process, and Dilip is cited primarily for showing authentication applying to accounts owned by more than an individual. Final Act. 6-7. Furthermore, Appellants' arguments are also incorrect, as Dilip also discloses making recommendations to open new accounts (Dilip paras. 64, 71, 78), and further discloses a procedure that we find to be an account opening: "If the user is establishing access to a new account, the user's identity may be authenticated by collecting and verifying various information about the user. Example information includes the user's name, address, social security number, and driver's license number." Dilip para. 125. We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Dilip fails to disclose both the claimed fraud detection and identity verification analysis 4 Appeal2014-007734 Application 12/561,125 steps. Appeal Br. 11. This is because the Examiner finds these in Golan, not Dilip, and Appellants do not dispute this finding. Final Act. 6. Appellants further argue "neither Golan nor Dilip, individually, disclose entities associated with a customer." Appeal Br. 11-12. This line of argument fails, initially, because independent claim 1 does not recite any associating with a customer. Furthermore, independent claim 1 actually recites "a first and a second entity for the customer." As we note above, this encompasses the joint account with two individuals, each of whom is an "entity," as disclosed by Dilip. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Golan and Dilip "cannot be combined." Appeal Br. 13. Golan discloses an authentication system for opening a new account. Golan paras. 23, 93. Dilip discloses that an account could be owned by two individuals. Dilip para. 36. We see no reason the account authentication system of Golan would not have been applied to both entities in Dilip that make up the customer of the account. Therefore, we see no reason the teachings of the two references could not be combine. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 2. We also sustain the rejection of claims 3-13 that are not separately argued. Appeal Br. 14. DECISION We affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claims 1-13. 5 Appeal2014-007734 Application 12/561,125 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6