Appeal 2007-0221
Application 09/737,404
function of the summary agent in Gershman (col. 34, ll. 56-64) would
necessarily involve the retrieving of financial information “proprietary” to
the subscribing user as claimed. We simply fail to see how the financial
information necessary for paying bills such as checking account numbers
and credit card numbers could be considered anything other than
information that is “proprietary” to the user.
We also make the observation that Gershman also discloses the use of
“proprietary” financial information in the life insurance planning example as
illustrated in Figure 23 and discussed beginning at column 35, line 61. As
illustrated, this “proprietary” information includes, at a minimum, the
particular policy number of the policy owned by the user for which the
analysis of insurance needs and goals is undertaken.
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome by any convincing
arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection,
based on the combination of Nazem, Nehab, Gershman, and Rao, of
independent claims 1 and 7, as well as dependent claims 2-5 and 8-11 not
separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s separate obviousness
rejection of appealed claims 1-5 and 7-11 based on the combination of
Nielsen and Franco, we sustain this rejection as well. As with the previously
discussed Gershman reference, Appellants’ arguments (Br. 7-8) focus on the
deficiency of Franco in disclosing the retrieving of financial information
“proprietary” to a user. We agree with the Examiner (Answer 23-24),
however, that Franco’s description of the “Stock Watcher” application,
illustrated in Franco’s Figure 2, provides a teaching of the use of a user’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013