Appeal No. 2001-0615
Application No. 08/741,459
financial institution, appellants states that the contract is completed, printed and
transmitted to the approving financial institution with the customer retaining control over
the document, and that once the customer has agreed to the financing, a completed
contract is filled out in the system and electronically transmitted to the bank, at which
point a digital signature is captured for transmission to the financial institution. At this
point, the document is executed and the customer relinquishes control of the document
to the financial institution.
Appellants question the examiner’s admission that Davidson discloses that the
document is returned to the first party with alterations/approvals that are made by the
remote entity and that Davidson teaches that the first party may present the document
to other remote entities for further development/approval by the remote entities as
needed, but yet the examiner “somehow and incongruously concludes that the first
party is controlling the development of the document by selecting which remote entity or
entities to which the document is presented” [brief-page 8].
We find no incongruity in concluding that a first party “controls” the development
of a document even though the document is returned to the first party with alterations.
If the first party agrees or disagrees with those alterations and acts accordingly, either
approving or disapproving such alterations, then it still can be said that the first party is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007