Appeal 2006-3331
Application 10/829,797
signal over an electronic network. Again, it is the Appellant’s burden to precisely
define the invention, not the PTO’s. See Morris, 127 F.3d at 1056, 44 USPQ2d at
1029. If the Appellant indeed intended to claim an Internet Service Provider then
the claim should have been amended to specifically recite this limitation. As such,
we give the phrase “service provider” its broadest reasonable interpretation in light
of the claim terms used and consistent with the Specification to mean an entity that
is providing the retailer with the service of comparison and verification of
information. Further, we interpret the claimed “electronic network” to be broad
enough to include any means of electronic transmission, such as via the Internet, a
virtual private network, or phone line, etc.4
Rejection of Claims 1-8 and 15-27
The Appellant argues that independent claims 1 and 18 are patentable over
McNeal, Braun, and Abecassis, independent claim 15 is patentable over McNeal,
Abecassis, Sunderji, and Braun, and independent claim 24 is patentable over
McNeal, Braun, Tedesco, and Abecassis because there is no motivation to transmit
checking account information and personal identification access information over
an electronic network to an independent third party service provider for
verification (Appeal Br. 7).
4 A common and ordinary meaning of “network”, in the computer science art, is
“[a] system of computers interconnected by telephone wires or other means in
order to share information.” American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language (4th ed. 2000), found at www.bartelby.com.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013