Ex Parte Eckl - Page 3

            Appeal Number: 2006-1650                                                                          
            Application Number: 09/903,500                                                                    

                                       STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                                  
                   This is the second appeal from a final rejection of claims 12 and 14-20.  The              
            appeal as to claims 21-36 has been dismissed.                                                     
                   The claimed invention is both a method for delivering billing statements and               
            a billing system for delivering billing statements.  The method and system deliver a              
            recipient’s bill either by printing and mailing or by furnishing an electronic copy.              
            A bill recipient’s preferences for billing are stored on a computer and are utilized              
            to determine the manner of billing.                                                               
                The references of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of                           
            obviousness are:                                                                                  
            Hogan    5,699,528   Dec. 16, 1997                                                                
            Comesanas    5,802,498   Sep. 1, 1998                                                             
                   Claims 12, 14, 15, 17-23, 25-27, 29-34, and 36 stand rejected                              
            under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Comesanas.                                             
                   Claims 16, 24, 28, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                          
            unpatentable over Comesanas in view of Hogan.                                                     
                   Appellant has not argued the rejections on appeal separately.  Although the                
            Appellant has set forth portions from two different claims remaining in this appeal               
            for argument in the Brief at 8, the Appellant consolidated the argument for all                   
            claims based upon their common elements on the following page.                                    
                                                   ISSUE                                                      
                   The sole issue for our consideration is whether the examiner, by a                         
            preponderance of the evidence, has established the prima facie obviousness of the                 
            independent claims 12 and 18.                                                                     



                                                      3                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013