Appeal No. 2005-2744 Application No. 09/849,979 Claim 81 requires that debiting of funds equal to the monetary gift amount be directed from a deposit account at a financial institution associated with the requesting donor to a deposit account at a financial institution associated with the service provider. The claim also requires that crediting of funds to the deposit account of the designated recipient be directed from the deposit account associated with the service provider. However, Appellants do not identify how claim 81 differs from the references cited by the examiner. The examiner states on page 11 of the answer: Official Notice was taken that the broad limitation, wherein the funds are directed to be credited to the deposit account from the deposit account associated with the service provider, was old an well known in the art. Despite its convoluted language, this limitation reads on one bank customer depositing funds into another bank customer’s account wherein the customer’s belong to the same bank. As demonstrated by the references offered by the Examiner [the articles Wijnen, and “Person-To- anywhere Payments Are Here With Citybanks’ C2it] this step is neither new or non-obvious when viewed in light of Van Dusen. We concur with the examiner’s findings. Initially we note, that claim 81 does contain several ambiguities and for the reasons stated infra we now reject claim 81 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph. Further, we note that claim 81 does not contain limitations directed to crediting the recipient’s account from the service provider’s account. As stated supra, with respect to claim 67, Van Dusen teaches that the donor can pay with a credit card, and that the credit transaction necessarily requires debiting a donor’s account and crediting a merchant’ account. We note that this function of credit cards is discussed briefly on page 2 of Wijnen (“Business readily establish merchant accounts to process 21Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007