Appeal No. 2003-2167 Page 9
Application No. 09/903,500
Comesanas does teach and suggest "prescribing delivery preferences for said billing
information" and "associating said delivery preferences with said billing information to
determine if said billing information is to be transmitted via printed transmission or
electronic transmission."
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 12, 14 to 17 and 19 to 36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is also affirmed since the appellant, as noted above, has grouped
claims 12 and 14 to 36 as standing and falling together and has not argued separately
the patentability of any particular claim apart from the others. See In re Young, 927
F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638,
642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978); and 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (8)(iv)).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 12 and 14 to 36
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007