Appeal No. 2005-0778
Application No. 09/867,587
With respect to independent claim 52, we find that Hogan similarly teaches a
system which corresponds to the methodology discussed above with respect to
independent claim 43, and we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 52 and
dependent claim 53 which appellants have elected to group therewith.
With respect to dependent claim 35 and 44, taking claim 44 as the representative
claim, we find the formatting of the data for presentation of the billing information with
the GUI to receive and pay bills would have been in response to the user selecting the
option to view the bills and pay them. The examiner relies upon columns 5 and 6 of
Hogan as discussed above with respect to independent claim 43. (Answer at page 11.)
Appellants argue that the examiner appears to ignore the express limitations of the
claims. We disagree, and find that the examiner has merely addressed the broad claim
limitations. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection
of claims 35 and 44. (The rejection of claim 41 was not sustained due to its
dependency on independent claim 40.)
With respect to dependent claims 37 and 46, the examiner maintains that the
email notice includes information indicating the location of the available billing
information on the network. From our review of the teachings of Hogan, we find that
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007