Appeal No. 2004-0094
Application No. 09/181,658
known. Further, the examiner has not shown, nor do we find, that appellants’
admission provides any suggestion to modify Saville’s system, where a several
business units can combine their bills for a single customer to one bill, to include
acquiring ownership of the receivables represented by the service provider.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 9 through 16, 35, 38 through
41 and 50 through 57.
We next consider the rejection of claims 5, 6, 17, 18, 23 through 31, 36, 37, 41
through 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Saville in view
of Official Notice and Smorodinsky. Claims 5, 6, 17, 18, 23 through 31, 36, 37, 41
through 49 all ultimately depend upon independent claim 1 and accordingly contain the
same limitations of claim 1. As discussed supra the combination of Saville and the
officially noticed facts do not teach all of the limitations of claim 1. The examiner has
not asserted, nor do we find that Smorodinsky teach or suggest a system where
ownership of the account receivables is acquired from the billers upon receipt of the
billers. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 17, 18, 23 through
31, 36, 37, 41 through 49.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007