Ex Parte Walls et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 16, 2013

11836984 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2013)

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