Appeal No. 2005-2744
Application No. 09/849,979
THE REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 58, 63, 65 through 69 and 74 through 79 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 (e) as being anticipated by Van Dusen. Claims 58, 65, 67 through
69, 75, 76, 79 and 80 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Van Dusen in view of Lenhart. Claims 59 through 62, 64 and
70 through 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Van Dusen in view of Albrecht. Claims 59 through 62, 64 and 70 through 73
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dusen in
view of Lenhart and Albrecht. Claim 81 is rejected as being unpatentable over
Van Dusen in view of Lenhart and Official Notice (the articles Wijnen, and
“Person-To-anywhere Payments Are Here With Citibanks’ C2it” were submitted
to support the facts noticed by the examiner). Throughout the opinion we make
reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, appellants’
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of
the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007