Ex Parte Tidwell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 12, 2013

10731294 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4
___________ 5
6
Ex parte LISA C. TIDWELL, AMY L. SWIFT, CASSANDRA MOLLETT, 7
MARK WALLIN, LANCE D. PATE, and CHARLES R. WILLIAMS 8
___________ 9
10
Appeal 2011-007970 11
Application 10/731,294 12
Technology Center 3600 13
___________ 14
15
16
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and 17
JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges. 18
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 19
DECISION ON APPEAL 20
Appeal 2011-007970
Application 10/731,294

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed May 13, 2009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
January 18, 2011).
Lisa C. Tidwell, Amy L. Swift, Cassandra Mollett, Mark Wallin, Lance 2
D. Pate, and Charles R. Williams (Appellants) seek review under 3
35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1-24, the only claims pending 4
in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant 5
to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 6
The Appellants invented a way of evaluating risk variables associated 7
with financial transactions (Specification para. [0001]). 8
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 9
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 10
paragraphing added]. 11
1. A point-of-sale device comprising: 12
[1] a display; 13
[2] a keypad; 14
[3] a communications interface; 15
and 16
[4] a computer processor in communication with the display, 17
the keypad, and the communications interface, 18
[4a] the computer processor configured to request 19
location information 20
about an employer who has issued a payroll check 21
presented in association with a check-cashing 22
transaction, 23
Appeal 2011-007970
Application 10/731,294

3
[4b] the computer processor further configured 1
to obtain from the keypad the employer location 2
information 3
and 4
to transmit the employer location information to a 5
remote location via the communications interface; 6
[4c] the computer processor further configured 7
to receive via the communications interface from a 8
check authorization system 9
and [sic, an] indication of a level of risk 10
associated with cashing the check, 11
[4d] the computer processor further configured 12
to display on the display a message based at least 13
in part on the indication. 14
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 15
Brodie US 7,257,246 B1 Aug. 14, 2007
Morrison US 6,105,011 Aug. 15, 2000
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 16
over Brodie and "Official Notice" as evidenced by Morrison. 17
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as 18
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. 19
ISSUES 20
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the limitations 21
regarding the nature of the query in the claims is predictable and deserving 22
of patentable weight. 23
Appeal 2011-007970
Application 10/731,294

4
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 1
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 2
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 3
Facts Related to the Prior Art 4
Brodie 5
01. Brodie is directed to authenticating a transaction and assessing 6
associated risks, and authenticating a check-cashing transaction 7
and assessing risks associated with a check-cashing transaction. 8
Brodie 1:12-16. 9
02. Brodie’s check cashing apparatus included a check scanner for 10
capturing an image of a check presented by the user. The host 11
system can authenticate the identification data by applying a 12
validation algorithm to the identification data. The host system 13
can authenticate the check data by converting one or more of the 14
data fields of the check image into a format capable of being 15
processed. The converted data is then compared to the check data 16
input by the user. The host system can calculate a score for each 17
data field based on a probability that the converted data from the 18
check image matches the check data input by the user. An image 19
filter comprising criteria for determining if the check data is valid 20
can then be applied to the transaction based upon one or more of 21
the data field scores. If the transaction fails the image filter, the 22
host processor can transfer the transaction for manual review. If 23
the transaction passes the image filter, the processor can determine 24
automatically whether to approve the check by applying a 25
Appeal 2011-007970
Application 10/731,294

5
plurality of risk assessment guidelines that produces a factor 1
score. The host processor calculates a cumulative score which is a 2
function of the amalgamation of the factor scores and determines 3
whether to approve check based upon the cumulative score. Upon 4
approval of the check, the host processor provides a signal to the 5
check-cashing apparatus to dispense cash. If the user is an 6
existing member or has established membership, the processor 7
determines automatically whether to approve the check by 8
applying one or more risk assessment guidelines using the 9
identification data and check data. Brodie 2:4 – 3:13. 10
03. One or more risk assessments are performed. Typically, an 11
administrative entity executes a Membership Application Process 12
(MAP) or routine to authenticate the consumer's identity. 13
Furthermore, the host, server, check-cashing administrative entity, 14
or another administrative entity can execute a check-cashing risk 15
assessment process or routine to authenticate the check being 16
presented by a consumer, and to assess or evaluate the risk 17
involved in a particular check-cashing transaction involving the 18
consumer and the check presented. Note that other processes and 19
routines involving risk assessments may be performed by the host, 20
server, check-cashing administrative entity, or another 21
administrative entity in accordance with the invention. 22
Furthermore, the consumer authentication and check 23
authentication routines can be done in any particular order prior to 24
assessing or evaluating the risk involved in a particular check-25
cashing transaction involving the consumer and the check 26
Appeal 2011-007970
Application 10/731,294

6
presented for cashing. Depending upon the results of the risk 1
assessments performed, if the results of the risk assessments result 2
in approval of the consumer, check, and transaction, then the 3
"Approved" branch leads to 170. If however, any of the risk 4
assessment routines reject the particular consumer, check, or 5
transaction, the method 100 will not complete the transaction and 6
will not proceed to 170. In this event, the kiosk will not dispense 7
proceeds to the consumer. Brodie 6:35-64. 8
04. If a positive file override is not determined, then the check is 9
declined, and the transaction is cancelled. If a transaction is not 10
eligible to be overridden by the positive file, then it is declined. 11
Note that all check transactions that have a validity error, or have 12
a hit on the negative file are declined. If a positive file override is 13
determined, then the consumer's check is approved, and the 14
consumer can receive a disbursement of funds. Just as with any 15
approval, the positive file approval will cause the host, server, 16
check-cashing administrative entity, or another administrative 17
entity to send a message to the kiosk to display the "We Owe 18
You" screen, where the consumer chooses how the proceeds of the 19
transaction will be disbursed. Brodie 13:60 – 14:14. 20
05. For some check types it may be necessary to obtain the name 21
of the maker on the check. Imaging character recognition 22
software extracts that data systemically for the check-cashing 23
administrative entity and ties that name to the paper draft print 24
file. That print file is also sent by FTP each day. If the imaging 25
character recognition software fails to identify the check's maker 26
Appeal 2011-007970
Application 10/731,294

7
name with a high level of confidence, then the transaction is 1
referred to a queue, where an associated agent views the image of 2
the front of the check with a graphical user interface (GUI) to 3
enter the maker name and address. The data necessary for the 4
paper draft can include the member's name, check amount, check 5
date, bank name, bank address, check number and maker name 6
and address. (emphasis) Brodie 14:56 – 15:2. 7
Morrison 8
06. Morrison is directed to identifying customers and determining 9
approvals for financial transactions, including cash-out 10
transactions performed by banks and other financial institutions or 11
businesses. Morrison 1:8-12. 12
07. Morrison describes a secure system for business interactions 13
with customers that includes obtaining check data including the 14
identity of the employer. Morrison 7:16-34. 15
ANALYSIS 16
Claims 1-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brodie 17
and "Official Notice" as evidenced by Morrison. 18
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that 19
Brodie fails to teach or suggest each of "request location 20
information about an employer (or check issuer) who has issued 21
a payroll check (or negotiable instrument)," and "obtain from 22
the keypad (or input system) the employer (or issuer) location 23
information and to transmit the employer (or issuer) location 24
information to a remote location." 25
Appeal 2011-007970
Application 10/731,294

8
Appeal Br. 7. Brodie explicitly queries for and retrieves check content 1
information for risk assessment. One who issues a check must have data 2
concerning that party on the check, which is then part of the contents Brodie 3
queries. The Examiner simply took administrative notice of this fact and 4
provided Morrison as evidence. To the extent Appellants take issue with the 5
propriety of taking such notice, we draw their attention to Article 3 of the 6
Uniform Commercial Code regarding negotiable instruments. One of 7
ordinary skill in negotiable instruments arts would clearly be familiar with 8
its contents. For that matter, anyone whoever cashed a check and waited for 9
a bank teller to determine whether funds were available would be equally 10
familiar with the practice of querying the maker of a check. 11
In fact, Brodie explicitly recites querying a database to verify the maker 12
of the check. The claim does not recite the nature of the recited location 13
information, so the address printed on most payroll checks would fall within 14
the scope of such location information. 15
Further, as Brodie clearly describes querying for and receiving check 16
information, the particular nature of the query is not functionally related to 17
the rest of the claim, deserves no patentable weight, and cannot distinguish 18
the claim over the art. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and 19
King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed Cir 20
2010). 21
Finally, we are not persuaded by the Appellants’ query of why would 22
someone of the art want to verify that the issuer is a local company (Appeal 23
Br. 13) as that is not recited in the claim. 24
25
Appeal 2011-007970
Application 10/731,294

9
Claim 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to 1
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. 2
Appellants do not contest this new ground of rejection. 3
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 4
The rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 5
over Brodie and "Official Notice" as evidenced by Morrison is proper. 6
The rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as 7
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention is 8
uncontested. 9
DECISION 10
The rejection of claims 1-24 is affirmed. 11
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 12
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 13
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). 14
15
AFFIRMED 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
mp 23
24
25