Appeal Number: 2006-1650
Application Number: 09/903,500
Transmittal of the invoice to each debtor is contemplated
in two ways. In today's business environment a shipping envelope is
routinely required. However, in the future, it is contemplated for
transmittal of invoices and invoice payments to be accomplished
electronically and for the existence of transmittal charges for such
electronic transmittal. The present invention can be used in an all-
electronic business environment whereby, for the debtor's
convenience in being allowed to make return payments electronically,
the debtor signs a print written agreement that he authorizes being
billed on his or her invoice for electronic transmittal charges that
would otherwise be incurred by the creditor for such electronic return
payment and for which the creditor would be unwilling to pay[.]
Should envelopes be required, the computer will determine whether
an address is needed for either the shipping envelope or the pre-paid
return envelope. If addresses are required, the computer will direct a
printer to print the creditor's address on the pre-paid return envelope
and the debtor's current address on the shipping envelope. It is not
critical to the present invention which envelope is printed first. The
computer will then direct a postage metering device to print
transmittal charges onto the shipping envelope and onto the return
envelope as needed. Again, it is not critical to the present invention
which envelope is printed first. The computer-aided billing system
will then have the computer direct the collation or assembly of the
pre-paid return envelope, the shipping envelope, and the invoice
for transmittal to the customer. This process is repeated for each
successive debtor in the database. As the operating speeds of printers
and postage metering devices are variable, the order of the steps
included herein may be varied to the extent necessary to maximize
the efficiency of each printer and each postage metering device used
by a creditor without departing from the fundamental intent of the
present invention. (Emphasis supplied).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it and the
prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013