Ex Parte Monk - Page 6

           Appeal 2007-2451                                                                       
           Application 10/694,925                                                                 

       1   Appellant admits that the billing module of Cameron does include the ability to        
       2   allocate payment across different methods, but contends that there is simply no        
       3   suggestion that the different payment methods be associated with the same              
       4   instrument.  (Br. 4-5.)                                                                
       5      The Appellant then argues that one would not have combined Blossom with             
       6   Cameron to form the claimed invention.  It is argued that that the issues associated   
       7   with a point-of-sale transaction are very different than those associated with a       
       8   remote order entry, and Cameron, therefore, may only be fairly relied upon to          
       9   teach the "ability to allocate an order across a plurality of payment methods" in the  
       10  context of a computerized, remote order entry. There is no suggestion applying         
       11  such a distribution at a point-of-sale device, nor any limitation reciting use with a  
       12  single instrument associated with a stored-value account and a credit account.         
       13  Neither suggests nonzero payment distributions at a point of sale device for           
       14  different accounts associated with the same instrument. Moreover, there is no          
       15  suggestion in the references to modify the teachings of Blossom to include             
       16  Cameron. The Appellant argues that the motivation found by the Examiner does           
       17  not constitute proper motivation - it addresses a user's motivation to use the         
       18  system, and not a motivation to combine the teachings of the references. (Br. 5-6.)    
       19     The Appellant also argues that Melchione has no disclosure of a stored-value        
       20  account and credit account being linked substantially contemporaneously with           
       21  issuance of an instrument associated with both accounts.  Claim 1 specifically         
       22  recites that a stored-value account and credit account be linked substantially         
       23  contemporaneously with issuance of the instrument to the customer. The Appellant       
       24  contends that the Abstract in Melchione fails to teach this limitation, and the        
       25  citations to other parts of Melchione are unclear.  (Br. 6.)                           

                                                6                                                 


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013