Appeal No. 1999-1342
Application 08/568,232
extent broadly recited in claim 3 on appeal. Appellants' arguments with respect to this
claim between pages 14 and 16 of the Reply Brief initially repeat the
positions in the corresponding discussion in the Brief. We obviously disagree with the
appellants that Eisenmann has no ability to selectively communicate on-line or off-line.
Moreover, the arguments in the paragraph bridging pages 15 and 16 relate to features not
recited in claim 3 but which are disclosed. Such arguments are nonpersuasive of
patentability. Because appellants present arguments only with respect to claim 3, group
dependent claims 4 and 5 therewith and present no arguments with respect to claims 4
and 5, they all fall with our consideration of dependent claim 3. Because dependent claim
6 relates to features of direct payment that we have already addressed in our
consideration of independent claims 1 and 7 on appeal, the examiner's rejection of claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Eisenmann is also reversed.
In view of the foregoing, we have sustained only the rejection of claims 3 through 5,
but have reversed the rejection of claims 1 and 6 through 13 on appeal. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007