Appeal 2007-2742
Application 09/764,618
1 Appellants separately argue claim 21, which recites “a plurality of electronic
2 auction payment accounts ... configured for storing funds therein ... [and]
3 automatically effecting payment to the seller by accessing the database and
4 debiting the electronic auction payment account corresponding to the winning
5 bidder of the at least one item and crediting at least one account corresponding to
6 the seller without any intervention by the winning bidder following the conclusion
7 of the electronic auction....”
8 The Examiner found that Bogosian describes all of the elements of claim 21
9 (Answer 13:Bottom ¶ - 14:Top ¶).
10 The Appellants contend that Bogosian and Hambrecht do not disclose or
11 suggest the above set of limitations in claim 21. The Appellants explain that
12 Bogosian’s description of requiring manual action (Br. 20:Second to last ¶) and
13 charging a user's credit card for effecting payment (Br. 20:Last ¶) is counter to
14 such automatic payment as claimed.
15 Bogosian describes several implementations of the purchase function. Several
16 embodiments do require manual action, and the Appellants rely on these
17 embodiments to support their position. Bogosian also describes alternative
18 embodiments using Amazon’s 1-click service that requires no manual action other
19 than selecting the item to purchase or bid on (FF 15-20). How Amazon 1-click
20 accomplishes these purchase operations are described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,960,411,
21 which Bogosian wholly incorporates by reference (FF 14). Thus, the payment
22 process of Bogosian that employs the Amazon 1-click embodiment requires no
23 manual action.
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013