Appeal No. 2005-1033 Page 9
Application No. 10/236,460
G2 which involves a transfer of funds from the customer K2 to the supplier AN2, so that
the supplier AN2 has at his disposal a budget of funds.
With that understanding of the term "budget," it is clear to us that Slotznick does
disclose that its automation component includes a "budget" for payment of the order. In
that regard, the prepaid funds on account disclosed by Slotznick constitute "a budget for
payment of the order."
For the reasons set forth above, claim 9 is anticipated by Slotznick. Accordingly,
the decision of the examiner to reject claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
Dependent claims 19 and 21 have not been separately argued by the appellant.
Accordingly, these claims will be treated as falling with parent claim 9. See In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); and In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638,
642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978). Thus, it follows that the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is also affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007