Appeal 2007-3540
Application 09/946,616
1 The Appellants repeat their contention from claim 1 that Bogosian fails to
2 anticipate an automatic payment method and therefore fails to provide such an
3 option (Br. 22:Bottom two ¶’s –23:Top line). We find that Bogosian does
4 anticipate this for the same reasons we stated for claim 1.
5 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
6 erred in rejecting claims 1, 11-13, 32, 50-54, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
7 anticipated by Bogosian.
8 Claims 2-10, 14-30, 33-45, 55, 56, and 58-61 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
9 unpatentable over Bogosian and Cornelius.
10 The Appellants argue these claims as a group.
11 Accordingly, we select claim 2 as representative of the group.
12 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c(1)(vii) (2006).
13 Claim 2 is directed towards withdrawing funds as in claim 1 on a periodic
14 basis.
15 The Examiner found that Bogosian did not describe periodic payments but that
16 Cornelius, another reference directed towards auctions, did. The Examiner
17 concluded that Cornelius’ description of paying auction amounts on a periodic
18 basis would have made it obvious to a person of ordinary skill to similarly pay
19 Bogosian’s sellers on a periodic basis (Answer 7:Bottom ¶ - 8:Top ¶).
20 The Appellants contend that Cornelius’s periodic payments are made per the
21 terms of a transaction between the buyer and seller, and therefore would not
22 involve the intermediary auctioneer (Br. 23:Bottom ¶ - 24:Top ¶).
23 Cornelius is directed towards financial transactions that may involve auctions
24 (FF 22-23) that may be made on a periodic basis (FF 24). Thus, Cornelius does no
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013