Appeal No. 2003-1051
Application No. 09/247,134
While the examiner recognized that Manduley did not disclose
the determination of whether a template exists for a bill and the
creation of a template if one does not exist, the examiner
contends that Kolling discloses this and that it would have been
obvious “to combine Kolling’s use of template to create
electronic statement and Manduley’s integration of paper and
electronic mail handling, in order to include both the paper and
electronic mail recipient as taught by Manduley’s” (sic) (answer-
page 8).
The examiner again turns to Lech for a scanning of a paper
bill to enter specific data contained in the paper bill into a
database.
We have thoroughly reviewed the examiner’s rationale for the
rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and we
find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 8-25 require receiving mail/bills in paper
and electronic formats. The mail is then sorted and data from
the paper mail/ bills is obtained in electronic format and an
electronic bill statement is issued to a subscriber.
Contrary to this, Kolling discloses only a system for
presenting electronic statements and does not involve itself with
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007