Appeal 2007-2742
Application 09/764,618
1 overcome this deficiency, the Examiner found that Hambrecht described an auction
2 of financial instruments in which professional investors have to route bids and
3 payments through brokers, the brokers not being users of Hambrecht’s system.
4 The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
5 skill in the art to have routed payments to Bogosian in a similar manner to take
6 advantage of existing credit accounts (Answer 4:Second and third ¶’s).
7 The Appellants contend that Hambrecht fails to describe settling transactions
8 by effecting payment after the sale; that one cannot reasonably conclude from
9 Hambrecht, that the brokerage account used to cover the transaction is used to
10 withdraw funds for performing a payment-related activity for effecting payment;
11 and that Hambrecht fails to describe that the existing account corresponds to an
12 individual who is not a user of the online web site (Br. 14:Bottom ¶ - 15:Top of
13 page).
14 The Examiner found that Bogosian describes performance of element [4.a.].
15 Element [4] requires that only one of the activities [4.a.] or [4.b.] be performed.
16 We find that the Appellants have not contended that Bogosian fails to describe
17 element [4.a.]. Thus, it is immaterial whether Hambrecht describes the
18 performance of [4.b.] to the rejection.
19 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
20 erred in rejecting claims 1-20.
21 Independent Claim 21
22 The Appellants argue claims 21-23 as a group. Accordingly, we select claim
23 21 as representative of the group.
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013