Appeal No. 2004-1959
Application No. 09/465,465
Lastly, we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 5, 6, and 14 based on the combination of
Gerace and Schutzer. With respect to claim 5, we find no error
in the Examiner’s line of reasoning (Answer, pages 7-9) which
establishes motivation for the combination of Gerace and
Schutzer. In our view, the skilled artisan would have been
motivated and found it obvious to enhance the statement
presentation system of Gerace by including billing statements as
suggested by Schutzer (column 12, lines 25-37). Further, we find
clear disclosure at column 2, lines 15-23 and column 20, line
21 of Gerace for the color display feature of claim 6, as well as
a description of the mailing feature of claim 14 at column 21,
lines 23-28 and lines 50-52 of Gerace.
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15-17 as well as the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 5, 6, and 14. Therefore,
the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-17 is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007