Appeal No. 2005-1615
Application 09/800,535
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejections.
The appellant indicates that the claims stand or fall
together (brief page 4). Although an additional reference is
applied to some of the dependent claims, the appellant does not
separately argue the patentability of those claims. We therefore
limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 19. See In re
Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed.
Cir. 1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Ronen discloses a method for performing centralized billing
for transactions conducted over the Internet between a user and
an Internet Service Provider (ISP) (abstract). That is a method
for processing financial transactions.
The ISP retrieves the user’s Internet Protocol (IP) address
which is assigned by an Internet Access Provider (IAP) to the
user for a session (col. 2, lines 9-10; col. 4, lines 13-14),
“and requests confirmation that an entry for a session has been
created for that IP address on the database [110] of the
transaction server [109] and that a billing mechanism has been
established on the billing server [111] for the user
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007