Appeal No. 2004-0094
Application No. 09/181,658
We note that in the amendment and arguments filed on July 26, 2001, appellants
requested the examiner to provide evidence to support the reliance on official notice.
The examiner has not provided the requested evidence in either the subsequent office
action, dated January 15, 2001, or the Examiner’s answer, rather the examiner
reiterated the same reasoning, relying on Official Notice. Nonetheless, appellants have
subsequently admitted some of the evidence officially noticed by the examiner by
stating, on page 9 of the brief:
Appellant agrees that it is common in the mortgage market for mortgages to be
sold between the first and secondary markets and that companies needing cash
sometimes sell their account receivables (debts) to a financial institution or
collection agency.
However, appellants argue, on page 9 of the brief, that the claimed invention is
different than the scenario of selling mortgages and debit as:
Appellant’s [sic] claims relate to acquiring ownership of receivables represented
by account data that is electronically received from time-to-time from each of a
plurality of billers, wherein at least one of the plurality of accounts is a recurring
bill account, wherein a customer continues to purchase products or services from
at least one of the billers after the service provider acquires ownership of the
receivables associated with the account data received, and wherein the service
provider acquires ownership of receivables associated with the subsequently
purchased products or services after receiving account data for the customer
account from the at least one biller.
Appellants further differentiate the claimed invention from the scenario of selling
mortgages by arguing, on page 10 of the brief, that “the selling of a particular mortgage
between the first and secondary markets, as cited by the Examiner, is a one-time
acquisition by the purchaser and is not recurring.”
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007