Appeal No. 2003-2131
Application 09/309,834
This proposed modification of McCarthy, which has not been
specifically challenged by the appellant, is reasonable on its
face given Kanter’s teaching that credits/rebates may be
determined either locally or centrally.
The appellant does contend, however, that McCarthy, even as
so modified, would still not respond to the limitations in claims
1, 12 and 15 requiring the controlling authority or computer
program to perform all four steps of (1) receiving rebate-related
information, (2) calculating the amount of a rebate, (3)
controlling transfer of the rebate amount to a trust account, and
(4) authorizing a financial institution trustee to transfer a
credit from the trust account directly to the consumer. This
line of argument rests on the appellant’s assertion that
“McCarthy does not teach or suggest . . . anything having to do
with a trust account” (main brief, page 4).
The examiner, citing the definition of the terms “trust” and
“trustee” provided by Black’s Law Dictionary With Pronunciations,
Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition (1891-1991), pp. 1508-14,
counters that McCarthy’s “customer accounts” 50 constitute trusts
having the central system 12 as a trustee and that the bank
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007