Appeal No. 2005-2744
Application No. 09/849,979
Rejection of claims 59 through 62, 64, 70-73 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dusen in view of Albrecht
and the Alternative Rejection of claims 59 through 62, 64, 70-73 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable Van Dusen in view of Albrecht and
Lenhart.
Claims 59 and 70.
Claim 59 includes the limitation “the electronic greeting card is transmitted
to the designated recipient at one of 1) a time subsequent to the directing of the
crediting of the funds to the deposit account, and 2) a time concurrent with the
directing of the crediting of the funds to the deposit account.” Claim 70 contains
similar limitations. Appellants argue, on pages 17 and 18 of the brief, that neither
Van Dusen, Albrecht or Lenhart teach these limitations. The examiner, citing no
evidence, maintains that changing the sequence of billing in Van Dusen is
obvious.
We disagree with both the examiner and the appellants Claim 59 is
dependent upon claim 58. As discussed supra, claim 58 does not identify the
beneficiary of the deposit account and we consider claim 58 to be broad enough
to encompass crediting funds into deposit accounts of either the recipient or the
electronic greeting card service. Additionally, we note that claim 59 is recited in
the alternative, thus, we consider the scope of claim 59 to include that a) the
electronic gift card is transmitted after crediting the funds into either the
recipient’s deposit account or the electronic greeting card service’s deposit
account, or b) the electronic greeting card is transmitted concurrent with
crediting funds into either the recipient’s deposit account or the electronic
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007