Appeal No. 2004-1959
Application No. 09/465,465
Appellants’ specification, however, reveals no support for the
restrictive interpretation of the term “statement” asserted by
Appellants. In fact, throughout Appellants’ specification the
term “statement” is distinguished from a financial term such as
“billing” or “bills” (“bill and/or statement,” specification,
page 3, line 26, “statement and/or bill,” specification, page 4,
line 25). Accordingly, we simply find no error in the Examiner
giving the broadest reasonable interpretation to the term
“statement” as articulated at pages 9-12 of the Answer.
We also make the observation that, as alluded to by the
Examiner (Answer, page 11), the disclosure of Gerace
in fact satisfies even the more restrictive interpretation
of “statement” argued by Appellants. For example, in our view,
the portfolio accounting page incorporating a list of stocks
owned by a user (Gerace, column 20, lines 53-62) would be
recognized by the skilled artisan as a financial account
statement as would the “income statements” referenced at
column 21, line 14 and column 24, line 42 of Gerace,
and the analytical statement presented in response to a
user’s request (Gerace, column 11, lines 25-41). Further,
contrary to Appellants’ contention (Reply Brief, page 2), we find
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007