LUTNICK, HOWARD W.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2019

11953324 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2019)

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.
11/953,324 12/10/2007 HOWARD W. LUTNICK 07-2187 1964
63710 7590 08/02/2019
INNOVATION DIVISION
CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P.
110 EAST 59TH STREET (6TH FLOOR)
NEW YORK, NY 10022
EXAMINER
WEATHERFORD, SYVILA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
lkorovich@cantor.com
patentdocketing@cantor.com
phowe@cantor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HOWARD W. LUTNICK
Appeal 2019-001649
Application 11/953,324
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, AND LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant,1 CFPH, LLC, appeals from
the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–8, 28, 30, 31, 40–46, and
48–54. Claims 3, 9–27, 29, 32–39, and 47 were canceled during
prosecution. App. Br. 21–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CFPH,
LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001649
Application 11/953,324
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a products and processes for a point
exchange. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving from each handheld device of a first group of
handheld devices, by at least one processor, a wager on an event,
in which the wager received from each handheld device includes
a respective plurality of points of a first type, in which each
handheld device is remote to the at least one processor, and in
which each handheld device and the at least one processor are in
electronic communication over a network;
based at least in part on an outcome of the event,
distributing to a first handheld device of the first group of
handheld devices, by the at least one processor, an amount of the
first type of points, in which the distributing comprises updating
a database entry for the first handheld device to reflect an
increase of the first type of points by the amount of the first type
of points that are distributed;
receiving, by the at least one processor, from the first
handheld device of the first group of handheld devices a request
to transfer the points of the first type from the first handheld
device of the first group of handheld devices to a first handheld
device of a second group of handheld devices in which members
of the second group use a second type of points different from
the first type of points for wagering;
in response to receiving the request to transfer the points
of the first type from the first handheld device of the first group
of handheld devices to a first handheld device of the second
group of handheld devices, querying, by the at least one
processor, a second handheld device of the second group of
handheld devices as to whether the second handheld device is
configured to permit the first handheld device of the first group
of handheld devices to transfer points of the first type to the first
handheld device of the second group of handheld devices;
responsive to querying the second handheld device of the
second group of handheld devices, receiving, by the at least one
Appeal 2019-001649
Application 11/953,324
3
processor, from the second handheld device of the second group
of handheld devices a verification that the request to transfer the
points of the first type from the first handheld device of the first
group of handheld devices to the first handheld device of the
second group of handheld devices is permitted; and
based at least in part on receiving the verification from the
second handheld device of the second group of handheld devices
that the request to transfer the points of the first type from the
first handheld device of the first group of handheld devices to the
first handheld device of a second group of handheld devices is
permitted: converting, by the at least one processor based on an
exchange rate, an amount of the first type of points into an
amount of the second type of points; and
distributing, by the at least one processor, the amount of
the second type of points to the first handheld device of the
second group of handheld devices, in which the distributing
comprises updating the database entry for the first handheld
device of the first group of handheld devices to reflect a decrease
of the first type of points by the amount of the first type of points
that are converted, and updating a database entry for the first
handheld device of the second group of handheld devices to
reflect an increase by the amount of the second type of points that
are converted.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Anuszewski
Davis
US 2008/0059367 A1
US 2008/0108429 A1
Mar. 6, 2008
May 8, 2008

REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 28, 30, 31, 40–46, and 48–54 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davis and Anuszewski.
Ans. 3.

Appeal 2019-001649
Application 11/953,324
4
OPINION
Appellant presents two related arguments regarding the Examiner’s
combination. Appellant first argues that the Examiner has misconstrued the
claim language in an unreasonable manner by equating the money of
Anuszewksi with the points disclosed in the instant Specification. App.
Br. 11. Second, Appellant argues that Anuszewski is non-analogous art for
essentially the same reason, namely that money and points are two different
concepts and so Anuszewski is too far afield from the claimed invention.
App. Br. 13. We disagree.
Appellant’s arguments essentially boil down to the assertion that the
exchange disclosed in Anuszewski is inapplicable to the present invention
because Anuszewski deals with money exchanges and the application deals
with in-game point exchanges. Appellant argues that the Examiner has
misinterpreted the Specification in equating money to points in order to
bring Anuszewski within the scope of Appellant’s claims. App. Br. 12.
According to Appellant, “the specification does not equate the points to
money; rather, the points are indicative of some external event.” Id.
Regardless of this assertion, Appellant provides no response to the
Examiner’s explanation of the relevance of Anuszewski when read in light
of paragraph 93 of Appellant’s Specification. Anuszewski deals with a
proposed currency exchange between two individuals/entities that are
operating under different currency systems such that a delay in processing of
any particular transaction may have a negative impact on one side or the
other if the exchange rate were to dramatically shift in favor of one party or
the other between the time of the transaction and the final processing of the
transaction. As such, Anuszewski teaches that it may be desirable to seek
permission from parties involved to proceed with the transaction under
Appeal 2019-001649
Application 11/953,324
5
certain parameters, either agreeing to the prevailing exchange rate upon final
processing or possibly setting an exchange rate at the time of the agreement
such that regardless of prevailing rate later on, the parties know at the time
of agreement what exchange rate will be used.
Although we agree that monetary exchanges are described in
Appellant’s Specification as being separate, out-of-game transactions that
are different from in-game point exchanges, we cannot ignore the similarity
between the portion of the Specification noted by the Examiner and the
system of Anuszewski. Appellant’s Specification, ¶ 93, states:
In some embodiments, a point value exchange may be
established through which users in various groups and of various
systems may trade amongst each other at an exchange rate agreed
upon individually by the users. A user may submit information
identifying current available points and current group/system to
which those points belong, and a target system/group and
possibly a target exchange rate. Such information may be
presented to one or more other users, such as through a point
value exchange interface that lists available trades, direct
solicitation (e.g., emails, etc. Other users who have points on
that target system/group may respond to such a request by accept
a trade. Such other users may accept an exchange rate and/or
other terms provided by the originator of the listing, and/or
suggest different terms and enter a negotiation. If the users
agree, a trade may be executed.
Regardless of the specific currency involved, there is little doubt as to the
applicability of Anuszewski given this disclosure. Both involve the
exchange of some form of currency using an exchange rate and requiring
permissions before the transaction is completed. Given this explanation by
the Examiner, we do not agree that the Examiner is equating the out-of-game
monetary transaction to points as asserted by the Examiner. Rather, the
Examiner has adequately pointed out how both Anuszewski and Appellant’s
Appeal 2019-001649
Application 11/953,324
6
Specification disclose a similar exchange of currency that involves an
exchange rate along with permission to accept terms before completion. In
this sense, it is perfectly reasonable for the Examiner to determine that
points and money are both types of currency, with the other details of the
transaction at issue being nearly identical. As such, we do not agree that the
Examiner has unreasonably interpreted the claim language to encompass the
transaction described in Anuszewski.
As to Appellant’s non-analogous art argument, this argument also
rests on the same premise that money and points are too different to allow
the Examiner to look to Anuszewski. As noted above, however, paragraph
93 of Appellant’s Specification makes clear that Anuszewski is properly
related to the claims at issue. Regarding the remaining claims, Appellant
provides no separate arguments and relies on the arguments made with
regard to claim 1, which we have already found unpersuasive. See App.
Br. 17. As such, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of all claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection is AFFIRMED.
FINALITY AND RESPONSE
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