Appeal No. 2005-2744
Application No. 09/849,979
service into the business arena, it would be for enterprises like a greeting card
company, which could enable customers to send money in ecards”).
For the forgoing reasons, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 81
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
New, Rejection of claim 81 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 Second Paragraph
We find claim 81 to be ambiguous and now enter a rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph. Claims are considered to be definite, as
required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the
metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable degree of precision
and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151
(CCPA 1976). As discussed supra claim 58 is does not contain a limitation
identifying the beneficiary of the claimed deposit account. Claim 81 depends
upon claim 85 and includes limitations directed to a donor’s deposit account and
a service provider’s deposit account. It is not clear if claim 81 recites two or three
deposit accounts. Further, the limitation “wherein the funds are directed to be
credited to the deposit account from the deposit account associated with the
service provider” is ambiguous as it is unclear as to which deposit account is
being credited. While, from appellants’ arguments it is apparent that appellants
intended claim 58 to recite the deposit account is associated with a recipient, and
intended claim 81 to recite crediting the deposit account associated with the
recipient, claims 58 and 81 contain no such limitations.
23
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007