Ex Parte 5671364 et al - Page 7




                Appeal No. 2006-1874                                                                                                
                Reexamination Control No. 90/006,351                                                                                
                incorrectly found that Marks discloses posting the transactions records to debit and credit the                     
                account data files of respective persons to update the data for the account of each person.  The                    
                portions of Marks cited by the examiner are directed to the ledger and subledger accounts of the                    
                same entity.  While the patent owner’s claimed invention is directed to payment transactions                        
                between different account holders, Marks is directed to accounting transactions within the same                     
                entity to keep records of all kinds including payments, obligations owed and obligations due.                       
                Marks is not directed to the actual performance of payment transactions involving the accounts                      
                of separate entities, but with maintaining all kinds of accounting records within the same entity.                  
                       On page 9 of the answer, the examiner states:                                                                
                       At page 9, Appellant discusses Marks.  Appellant asserts that Marks has no                                   
                       provision for payment, yet the reference clearly shows payment transactions at                               
                       Col. 4, lines 49-52, and Col. 9, line 31 to Col. 10, line 37.                                                
                We have reviewed the portions of Marks cited in the above-quoted text.  They do refer to                            
                payments but only from the perspective of accounting and bookkeeping within one entity, not in                      
                the context of debiting one person’s account and crediting another person’s account and posting                     
                of the same accounts as have been claimed.  Marks does not implement payment transactions                           
                between two account holders but merely records a payment or potential payment from one side.                        
                The examiner has not pointed to any disclosure of Marks that debits the account of one person,                      
                credits the account of another person for the same amount, and posts the resulting balances.                        
                       For the foregoing reasons, the examiner incorrectly determined the differences between                       
                the claimed invention and Marks.  It is not necessary to consider the disclosure of the Gold                        
                Certificate.  The examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16 as unpatentable over Marks and the Gold                       
                Certificate cannot be sustained.  In any event, the Gold Certificate is a bearer instrument and the                 

                                                                 7                                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007