Appeal 2007-0789
Application 09/810,063
Odlyzko teaches the fifth step of the claimed method, Saari need not be addressed
since it, too, shows calculating a usage amount according to the amount of time a
user uses a service was known in the art. (FF 36). Nevertheless, Appellants’
argument that Saari uses a specific billing technique not contemplated by
Appellants is not commensurate in scope with what is claimed. (FF 37 and 38).
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 over the cited references.
However, our reasoning in concluding that the claimed method would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art departs from that of the Examiner,
especially in our reasoning leading to the conclusions that the second step of the
claimed method would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over
Odlyzko and that Odlyzko would have suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
the third and fourth steps claimed. Accordingly, though we affirm the rejection, we
denominate the rejection as a new ground under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
E. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims over the prior art.
Claims 4, 11, and 18
Pursuant to the rules, the Board selects representative claim 4 to decide the
appeal with respect to the rejection of this group of claims, and claims 11 and 18
will stand or fall with claim 4. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). Claim 4 reads
as follows:
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013