Appeal No. 2003-1606 Page 3
Application No. 09/289,901
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
We have reviewed the disclosure of Kolling, especially those portions cited by the
examiner in the answer, but failed to find therein any teaching of either (1) a Send
Request object containing both a Recipient Preferences element and a Sender
Requirements element as set forth in claims 1 to 6, 13 and 14; or (2) any means or step
to override the Recipient Preferences element instructions to the extent that these
instructions are in conflict with the requirements of the Sender Requirements element
as set forth in claims 1 to 6, 13 and 14. Thus, we find ourselves in full agreement with
the appellants' argument that Kolling does not disclose all the claimed elements recited
in the independent claims on appeal (i.e., claims 1 and 13).
While there is much in common between the claimed subject matter and the
teachings of Kolling, as pointed out by the examiner, Kolling does not teach either of the
above-noted claimed elements. In that regard, the examiner has not identified, and we
have not found, any element in Kolling readable on the Send Request object containing
both a Recipient Preferences element and a Sender Requirements element as set forth
in claims 1 to 6, 13 and 14. While Kolling does permit the consumer financial institution
to present various methods of communications to the consumer and then permit the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007