Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925
1 Thus, the issue pertinent to this appeal is whether the rejection of claims 1-7
2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Blossom, Cameron, and Melchione is
3 proper. This issue turns on whether one of ordinary skill would have applied
4 Cameron’s automated payment allocation across multiple accounts to the multiple
5 accounts on Blossom’s card, and on the amount of patentable weight afforded to
6 the limitation that a past structural limitation of linkage between accounts and the
7 card were contemporaneous, and to the degree such weight is afforded, whether
8 one of ordinary skill would have contemporaneously made the linkage with
9 Blossom’s card in view of Melchione’s teachings.
10
11 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
12 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF), supported by substantial
13 evidence, are pertinent to the above issues.
14 Claim Construction
15 01. The specification provides no lexicographic definition for the terms
16 “instrument” and “stored-value.”
17 02. The usual and ordinary meaning of “instrument,” as it relates to a
18 financial transaction, is a legal document, such as a deed, will, mortgage,
19 or insurance policy1.
20 03. The usual and ordinary meaning of “store,” as a verb, is to reserve or
21 put away for future use. Thus, the usual and ordinary meaning of
22 “stored-value” is value reserved or put away for future use.
1 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th Edition. 2000).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013