Appeal 2007-0789
Application 09/810,063
C. Principles of Law
We incorporate herein the Principles of Law set forth in the Principles of
Law sections for claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, and 15-18 above.
D. Analysis
It is old and well known for an Internet Service Provider to charge online
customers for the elapsed time spent online, between the time the Provider receives
a request to initiate online service and receiving a request to discontinue online
service. The difference here is that claim 21 applies this well known business
practice to an online service that provides priority network service. Priority
network service is well known in the field on online services (see Odlyzko). It
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the same
practice of charging customers for regular online service to charge customers for
using a priority network service, i.e., on the basis of the elapsed time spent using
the high priority service, between the time the Provider receives a request to
initiate the service and receiving a request to discontinue that service.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that one of ordinary skill
would not look to keeping track of the amount of time that a particular user is
connected to a host computer (irrespective of how the user is connected to the
computer) as a way of charging customers who use a priority network service.
Common sense dictates precisely the opposite; that a person of ordinary skill
seeking a way to charge customers who use a priority network service would
consider a method used to charge customers for online usage. “A person of
30
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013