Appeal No. 2004-1477
Application No. 09/507,183
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by
the appellants and by the examiner, we refer to the supplemental
appeal brief filed August 11, 2003 and the reply brief filed
November 17, 2003 as well as to the answer mailed November 6,
2003 for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
We will sustain this rejection for the reasons set forth in
the answer1 and below.
It is the examiner’s basic position that Boesch fails to
disclose the appellants’ claimed features relating to “a non-
commercial communication from the transferor” and relating to
“debiting funds . . . using a spread around an exchange rate
between the currencies.” According to the examiner, however, it
would have been obvious for one having an ordinary level of skill
in the art to modify Boesch’s system (1) so that it responds to
non-commercial (as well as commercial) communication from the
transferor in view of Downing and (2) so that it debits funds
1 We expressly repudiate the statements on pages 7 and 9 of
the answer which represent that the appellants have admitted that
it is legitimate to regard Boesch’s “risk range” as the here
claimed “spread.” As thoroughly explained in the reply brief,
the appellants in fact have admitted no such thing. We caution
the examiner and the conferees who signed the answer to be more
circumspect in their representations concerning admissions by
applicants.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007