Appeal No. 2005-0778
Application No. 09/867,587
respect to a payment due notice is not a billing information availability notice. (Brief at
page 15.) We do not find this argument persuasive since we find no difference between
the non-functional descriptive material within either of the emails of Hogan or the
claimed invention as long as there is a communication via email which then makes the
user access/request the billing information in response thereto and receive the billing
information.
We find that the transmission of the payment due notice and the subsequent
logging onto the server computer through the internet in response thereto and
transmission of billing data to be viewed by the user meets the language of independent
claim 34. We find that Hogan teaches the invention as recited in independent claim 34,
and dependent claim 36 grouped therewith. Similarly, we will sustain the rejection of
independent claim 50 since the limitations thereto parallel those in independent claim 34
and we do not find a persuasive argument by appellants of claim 34. While Hogan
discusses merely a single server 160, we find that Hogan
teaches that the server performs the varied functions recited in independent claim 50.
Since the language of independent claim 50 does not require separate and distinct
servers, we find that Hogan teaches the limitations as recited.
With respect to independent claim 40, the examiner relies upon the teaching of
Hogan with respect to transmitting the billing information via email and utilizing an email
receipt confirmation and to acknowledge when the bill is received and opened by the
subscriber. (Answer at pages 5-6.) Appellants argue that Hogan does not teach that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007