Appeal 2007-2451
Application 10/694,925
1 ANALYSIS
2 Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Blossom, Cameron,
3 and Melchione.
4 We note that the Appellant argues these claims as a group. Accordingly, we
5 select claim 1 as representative of the group.
6 Appellant’s invention is the automated allocation of a purchase payment across
7 multiple accounts linked to a single card, or instrument, where one account is for
8 credit and the other account for a stored-value, and where the accounts were linked
9 to the instrument contemporaneously. The Examiner applied Blossom to show the
10 features of a multiple account card, Cameron to show automated allocation among
11 accounts, and Melchione for the suggestion of contemporaneous linking.
12 We initially note that, as anyone who has received stored-value cards in the
13 form of gift cards has experienced, at some point, the balance in the stored-value
14 account is not going to be sufficient to cover a purchase and at that point the
15 purchaser will allocate non-zero amounts to both the stored-value account and to a
16 credit card or cash. The Appellant’s invention is thus no more than linking the two
17 accounts on a single card and automating the allocation that occurs in such a
18 frequently experienced purchase. Automation of a known manual process, to gain
19 the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as decreased size,
20 increased reliability, simplified operation, and reduced cost, that is no more than
21 the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is
22 commonly available and understood in the art is obvious to a person of ordinary
23 skill (see Leapfrog, supra).
24 The Appellant initially argues the references piecemeal, contending that each
25 of Blossom and Cameron fails to teach what is taught by the other. Thus, the
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013