Appeal No. 2004-0094
Application No. 09/181,658
We find that appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the
claims. We do not find that any of independent claims 1, 50, 54, 55, 56 or 57 include a
limitation that “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” as argued by
appellants on page 9 of the brief. Nonetheless, we do find that independent claims 1,
50, 54, 55, 56 or 57 include limitations directed to receiving account data electronically
from time-to-time and acquiring ownership of the receivables associated with the
account.
Appellants argue, on page 10 of the brief that there is no motivation or
suggestion in the references to combine the officially noticed evidence with the teaching
of Saville.
The examiner’s response to appellants’ arguments, on page 21 of the answer,
reiterates the statement from the January 15, 2002 final rejection, that buying and
selling debts is “old and well known.” Further, the examiner states, on page 21 of the
answer: “[e]xaminer notes that the [sic] Seville discloses by [sic] debits, and that action
is not limited to a one-spot and not limitation shows that this step in Saville can be
object of recurring actions.”
We do not find the examiner’s reasoning to be convincing or supported by
evidence of record. While we concur with the examiner that Saville teaches a system
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007