Ex Parte SCHURKO et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2001-1017                                                        
          Application No. 08/988,151                                                  


               1.   A method of operating a banking system over a data                
          transfer system comprising the steps of:                                    
               inputting a customer banking request from among a menu of              
          said banking requests at a personal computer;                               
               transmitting said customer banking request to a host                   
          computer remote from said personal computer;                                
               receiving said customer banking request at said host                   
          computer;                                                                   
               identifying a type of customer banking request received;               
               comparing said type of request to a stored table of request            
          types, each of said request types having an attribute indicating            
          whether said request type is capable of being fulfilled by a                
          customer service representative or by an automated system; and              
               depending upon said attribute, directing said request either           
          to a queue for handling of said request by a customer service               
          representative or to a queue for processing said request by an              
          automated system.                                                           
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Keyser, Jr. et al. (Keyser)   5,025,373           Jun. 18, 1991             
          Muller                        5,561,711           Oct. 01, 1996             
               Claims 1 through 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as            
          being unpatentable over Keyser in view of Muller.                           
               Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 11,              
          mailed August 30, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in            
          support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper                  



                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007