Ex Parte Walls et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 16, 201311836984 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/836,984 08/10/2007 Robert K. Walls P00308-US-UTIL(M01.059/U) 4137 28062 7590 04/16/2013 BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC 50 LOCUST AVENUE NEW CANAAN, CT 06840 EXAMINER GOTTSCHALK, MARTIN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3693 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/16/2013 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 ROBERT K. WALLS, DAVID CHAN, DENNIS J. HILL, and SARA E. FIEBIGER ____________ Appeal 2011-007249 Application 11/836,984 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before: JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL W. KIM, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007249 Application 11/836,984 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 27-451. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. The invention relates generally to methods, apparatus, systems, means and computer program products for implementing a remittance system on the basis of an international payment card system (Spec. 1:7-9). Claim 27, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 27. A method comprising: receiving in a computer a request for a funds transfer from a first financial institution located in a first country, the request including data that indicates the name and residential address of an individual who initiated the funds transfer; and utilizing the computer to route the funds transfer from the first financial institution to a second financial institution located in a second country that is different from the first country, the routing of the funds transfer including transmitting, from the computer to a receiving FI (financial institution) computer operated by the second financial institution, via a payment system that handles debit card and/or credit card transactions, the name and residential address of the individual who initiated the funds transfer, said second financial institution having issued a payment card account belonging to a recipient, said request indicating that said payment card account is to receive the funds transfer; wherein the name and residential address of the individual who initiated the funds transfer are automatically incorporated in a data exchange handled in the payment system for executing the funds transfer. 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed September 30, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 21, 2010). Appeal 2011-007249 Application 11/836,984 3 THE REJECTIONS Claims 27-32, 37-41 and 43-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chauhan (US 2006/0287953 A1, pub. Dec. 21, 2006) and Lawrence (US 2004/0078321 A1, pub. Apr. 22, 2004). Claims 33-36 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chauhan, Lawrence, and Official Notice. We AFFIRM. FINDINGS OF FACT Lawrence 1. Lawrence discloses that situations can arise where an intermediary financial institution may wish to provide a service or product to a customer of the intermediary financial institution but not be able to provide the service themselves (para. [0005]). 2. The action can include, for example, a request to open an account, execute a financial transaction or take some other action (para. [0005]). 3. The intermediary financial institution may approach a Primary Financial Institution and request that the Primary Financial Institution provide the necessary service (para. [0005]). 4. The Intermediary 101-102 can initiate a transaction 312 with a Primary Financial Institution 107 or other subscriber 108 and cause the registered information to be conveyed to the Primary Financial Institution 107 (para. [0069]). 5. Registered information may include a customer identifier 313 Appeal 2011-007249 Application 11/836,984 4 or other indication descriptive of the customer, to the Primary Financial Institution 107 (para. [0069]). 6. Registered information may also include datum which identify a home and business address for the customer; a means of identification, such as a passport, driver's license, birth certificate, or other official document, as well as data gleaned from such a document, such as a numeric identifier; alternate names the customer has ever been known by; or other information (para. [0043]). ANALYSIS Obviousness Rejection of Claims 27-32, 37-41, and 43-45 Appellants argue claims 27-32, 37-41, and 43-45 as a group (App. Br. 7-8). Appellants select independent claim 27 as representative (App. Br. 7). We do as well. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants assert that Chauhan does not disclose “wherein the name and residential address of the individual who initiated the funds transfer are automatically incorporated in a data exchange handled in the payment system for executing the funds transfer,” as recited in independent claim 27. However, independent claim 27 is rejected over a combination of Chauhan and Lawrence (Ans. 5-8, 12-14). Paragraphs [0005] and [0069] of Lawrence disclose that a financial transaction between an intermediary financial institution and a Primary Financial Institution can include a customer identifier 313 or other indication descriptive of the customer. Such indications can include a name and residential address (paras. [0043]). Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. Appeal 2011-007249 Application 11/836,984 5 Obviousness Rejection of Claims 33-36 and 42 Appellants do not separately argue the rejection of claims 33-36 and 42. Accordingly, we summarily sustain this rejection as well. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 27-45 is AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation