Appeal No. 2005-1805
Application 09/728,705
between the debits and credits of (an account)” or “to reconcile or equalize the sums of the debits
and credits of (an account).”2 These definitions place a restriction on claim 1 in that the
comparing step requires the pre-processed accounts receivable and processed accounts receivable
be related as debits and credits of the same account. Thus, while Crooks’ comparing current
billing information to the billing information of a prior period meets the language of the
comparing step standing by itself, Crooks’ comparing does not meet the language of the claimed
comparing step when looked at in the full context of claim 1.
Independent claim 16 contains identical “balancing” (preamble) and “comparing” (step)
limitations as found in claim 1. Thus, the result for claim 16 is the same as above.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Other Issues
In our review of this appeal we noted the following items. At claim 1, line 18, “receivables”
should be singular not plural. In paragraphs [0016]-[0026] of the substitute specification filed on
October 17, 2003, the word “pre-processed” is repeatedly misspelled as “pine-processed.” Also,
at paragraph [0006] of the substitute specification the word “determine” is misspelled.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have not sustained the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-23.
2 Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary, 1988, page 148. Copy provided to
Appellant.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007