Appeal No. 2004-0094
Application No. 09/181,658
where several business units can combine their bills for a single customer to one bill
(see Saville, page 4, 4th paragraph and 7th paragraph), we find that the examiner has
not shown that Saville teaches or contains a suggestion that ownership of the account
receivables is acquired from the billers upon receipt of the account data. Further, we
consider the examiner’s statement, that buying debit is old and well known and that one
would be motivated to “acquire ownership in order to increase the flexibility of the
financial solutions” to be a broad conclusory statement which is un-supported by
evidence of record.
Our reviewing court has “In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the
Board must necessarily weigh all of the evidence and arguments.” In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “[T]he Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but must also
explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support the agency’s
conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
When determining obviousness, “[t]he factual inquiry whether to combine references
must be thorough and searching.” Lee, 277 F.3d at 1343, 61 USPQ2d at 1433, citing
McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351-52, 60 USPQ2d 1001, 1008
(Fed. Cir. 2001). “It must be based on objective evidence of record.” Id. “Broad
conclusory statements regarding the teaching of multiple references, standing alone,
are not ‘evidence.’” In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007