Appeal No. 2003-0957 Page 4
Application No. 09/074,074
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
address the point of contention therebetween. The examiner makes the following
assertions.
Thomson et al show: arranging the selected billing messages ( Fig. a1 (A,
11, 98), Fig. b (B, 87), Fig. c (L,2 C, 11, 22) and Fig. d. (D). The
message A, Fig. a, seemingly looks that it would remain same for all the
customers, however, it is just an example of types of the various
messages under the element named "Variable message data" (Col. 13,
line 17) stored (arranged) in the database (Col. 12, lines 63-65: This
system includes the functions of generation (arranging, storing) of the
initial customer and financial institution control file data base from source
data) in some predefined scheme. Thomson et al also show "matching
and extraction (selection) of information, col. 13, lines 65-68". From the
above citations, it is clear that Thomson et al teach "arranging the selected
messages".
(Examiner's Answer, § 11.3) He admits, "Thomson et al do not show . . . each
[message] having an assigned priority. . . ." (Id., §10.) Noting that "Baggarly et al
teach priority of messages to be included in the envelope enclosing the statement of
account (billing statement)," (id.), the examiner asserts, "it would have been obvious . . .
to incorporate Baggarly et al's feature in Thomson et al's invention, because it would
1Thomson omits "Fig. a," "Fig. b," "Fig. c," and "Fig. d" to which the examiner
refers. Based on the numbers of the drawing element to which he cites (e.g., nos. 11,
98), we presume that the reference is to Figures 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d of Thomson.
2We are uncertain to what "A," "B," "L," "C," and "D" refer.
3The examiner should number the pages of his answers.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007