Ex Parte Weksler

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 1, 2015

11135781 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2015)

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.
11/135,781 05/24/2005 Michel Weksler 70481.1620US01 4548
116452 7590 04/02/2015
Haynes & Boone, LLP (70481)
2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
AKINTOLA, OLABODE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3691
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2015 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 MICHEL WEKSLER
____________

Appeal 2012-011487
Application 11/135,781
1

Technology Center 3600
____________

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–11, 28, and 29. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “a method of facilitating a
loan transaction between a lendee and a lender.” (Spec. ¶ 6.)
Claims 1 and 28 are the independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative
and is reproduced below (emphasis added):

1
According to Appellant, the real party in interest is PayPal Inc. (Appeal
Br. 2.)
Appeal 2012-011487
Application 11/135,781

2
1. A method of facilitating loan transactions between a
lendee and a lender, the method comprising:
receiving, at a loan processing server, a loan request from
the lendee via a network;
sending the loan request to a plurality of lenders via the
network, the plurality of lenders comprising the lender, the
lender being a lender pool, the lender pool comprising a
plurality of member lenders;
comparing one or more requirements of the loan request
to respective loan offers provided by the respective lenders of
the plurality of lenders, a first loan offer of the respective loan
offers provided by the lender pool;
receiving, at the loan processing server, a first acceptance
indication from a first member lender of the lender pool and a
second acceptance indication from a second member lender of
the lender pool; and
based on receiving at least the first acceptance indication
from the first member lender and the second acceptance
indication from the second member lender, ordering the lender
to directly transfer an amount of funds requested by the lendee
from a first financial account of the first member lender and
from a second financial account of the second member lender to
a financial account of the lendee in response to a selection by
the lendee of the lender, the directly transferring the amount of
funds requested by the lendee including directly transferring,
without manual intervention, a portion equal to the amount of
funds divided by a number of member lenders in the lender
pool that accept the terms of the loan request, comprising at
least the first member lender and the second member lender,
from respective financial accounts of the member lenders that
accept the terms of the loan request to the financial account of
the lendee,
a number of member lenders participating in a loan
based on the loan request being less than a total number of
member lenders in the lender pool.

Appeal 2012-011487
Application 11/135,781

3
REJECTION
Claims 1–11, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lebda (US 6,385,594 B1, iss. May 7, 2002), Norris
(US 5,870,721, iss. Feb. 9, 1999), and Philippines Seeks 3 Billion Dollars in
Fresh Loans, Xinhua News Agency, Jan. 3, 1998 [hereinafter Xinhua].
ANALYSIS
In relevant part, Lebda discloses an internet based system that allows
a lendee to submit a single credit application to multiple lending institutions.
The lending institutions reply to the lendee as to whether the application has
been accepted or rejected. (Lebda, col. 1, l. 53 – col. 2, l. 17, col. 5, l. 59–
col. 6, l. 5; see also Final Office Action 3.)
Xinhua discloses “‘club loans’ being arranged with international
commercial banks . . . .” (Xinhua 1.) “Under a club loan, the participating
institutions will pour in funds on an equal-sharing basis, unlike a loan
syndicate in which a leading arranger will be appointed.” (Id.; see also Final
Office Action 4.)
Appellant argues that
the Examiner “interprets the ‘plurality of lending institutions’ in
Lebda as lender pool with each individual lender as member
lender since only lenders that sign up with the inventor can
access the invention.” Appellant respectfully disagrees with the
Examiner’s assertion that the plurality of financial institutions
of Lebda constitutes a “lender pool” merely by virtue of
“signing up with the inventor.” Appellant notes that claim 1
recites, inter alia, “comparing one or more requirements of the
loan request to respective loan offers provided by the respective
lenders of the plurality of lenders, a first loan offer of the
respective loan offers provided by the lender pool.” Because
“signing up with the inventor” does not teach or suggest that the
Appeal 2012-011487
Application 11/135,781

4
plurality of financial institutions collectively provide a first loan
offer to the system of Lebda, Lebda does not teach or suggest at
least this element of claim 1.

(Appeal Br. 12, footnotes omitted.)
Appellant also argues that
Xinhua, however, does not teach or suggest that “a number of
member lenders participating in a loan based on the loan
request is less than a total number of member lenders in the
lender pool” as recited by Appellant’s claim 1.

* * *

In operation, the “international commercial banks” of Xinhua
who have not accepted the terms of the club loan would not be
in the “lender pool” (as interpreted by the Examiner) because
they would not be a party to the “club loans” from the
beginning.

(Id. at 14.)
The Examiner states that “[t]he specification simply defined a lender
pool as a group of lenders that are offering funds for lending (page 7,
(paragraph 31) lines 10–11). Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of
Lebda, the plurality of lenders is considered a group of lenders that are
offering funds for lending.” (Answer 2.)
We agree with the Examiner that the Specification states that “[a]
lender pool is a group of lenders that are offering funds for lending.” (Id.,
see also Spec. ¶ 31.) However, according to claim 1, the loan request is sent
“to a plurality of lenders via the network, the plurality of lenders comprising
the lender, the lender being a lender pool, the lender pool comprising a
plurality of member lenders . . . .” In other words, there is a plurality of
“member lenders,” e.g., individual lending institutions, which make up the
Appeal 2012-011487
Application 11/135,781

5
“lender pool.” The “lender being a lender pool.” Thus, the “lender” has a
plurality of member lenders.
Lebda discloses receiving multiple offers from lenders in response to
the lendee’s credit application (see Lebda, col. 2, ll. 13–17) but nothing in
Lebda cited by the Examiner discloses accepting an offer or receiving funds
from more than one lender. Xinhua, however, discloses that lenders can
band together and form a “club loan” in which each lender puts in funds on
an equal-sharing basis. (Xinhua 1, see also Final Office Action 4.) Using
the terminology of claim 1, the lenders who band together in Xinhua form a
“lender pool.” But claim 1 also requires “a number of member lenders
participating in a loan based on the loan request being less than a total
number of member lenders in the lender pool.” Nothing in Xinhua cited by
the Examiner discloses less than all of the lenders in the “club loan”
participating in the loan.
Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because all of the remaining
claims contain the same or similar limitations, we also agree that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2–11, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). We reverse.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–11, 28, and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

REVERSED
Klh