Appeal No. 2003-0957 Page 9
Application No. 09/074,074
Here, in contrast to the appellants' invention, the examiner has not shown that
space available on Thomson's integrated billing document limits the number of
messages that can be included therein. We agree with the appellants that the reference
also "fails to disclose . . . or suggest considering if messages can 'fit within the message
area (of the billing statement template)' when selecting which messages to use in the
billing statement." (Reply Br. at 2.) While Thomson's data base includes a field for
variable message data, supra, the examiner has not shown that the reference needs to
determine, let alone does determine, whether that data can fit within a message area of
a billing template. Because the reference is not concerned with limiting the number of
messages or the amount of data that can be included in its integrated billing document,
we are not persuaded that it would have been desirable to assign priorities to such data.
Absent a teaching or suggestion of assigning priorities to billing messages and including
in a customer's bill only those messages that can fit within a message area of a billing
template and that have the highest priority, we are unpersuaded of a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 18 and 19 and
of claim 20, which depends from the latter.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007