Appeal No. 2003-0133
Application 08/940,702
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In
re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
Claims 4 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Williams in view of Munsil. We will not
sustain this rejection for the same reasons as we pointed out
above. Furthermore, we fail to find that Munsil provides
evidence of the limitations recited in appellants’ claim 1 in
which claims 4 and 7 are dependent upon.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8 through 12, and 25 through 27 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan
in view of Reilly. Appellants argue that neither Hogan nor
Reilly teach or suggest a method or apparatus for sorting,
highlighting, or filtering detailed billing records contained
within a bill obtained in electronic form, for formatting field
information within each detailed billing record, or for
displaying the detailed billing records and formatted field
information contained within a bill in accordance with criteria
entered by the user as recited in appellants’ claims. See page 8
of appeal the brief.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007