Appeal 2007-2742
Application 09/764,618
1 The Appellants argue claims 24-27 as a group. Accordingly, we select claim
2 24 as representative of the group.
3 Appellants separately argue claim 24, which recites “determining if there are
4 sufficient funds in a payment account to effect payment, …; debiting the payment
5 account corresponding to the user …, if there are sufficient …; and loaning funds
6 …, if there are not sufficient ….”
7 The Examiner found that Bogosian describes all of the elements of claim 24
8 except the elements contended by the Appellants, supra. The Examiner found that
9 Hambrecht described these elements (Answer 14:Bottom ¶ - 16:Top ¶).
10 Here we revisit the issue that was originally raised in claim 1, but turned out to
11 be non-dispositive there. The Appellants contend that Hambrecht does not teach
12 that institutional investors can use credit to settle the transactions or that a direct
13 bidder with insufficient funds can submit a bid (Br. 15:First full ¶). They explain
14 that Hambrecht does not describe that payment is effected automatically by
15 determining if there are sufficient funds in a payment account to effect payment
16 and loaning funds if there are not sufficient funds (Br. 18:Bottom ¶ - 19:Top of
17 page).
18 Hambrecht’s users who are able to access credit if needed may rely on a broker
19 to ensure there are adequate funds. Hambrecht performs a test to see whether there
20 are sufficient funds (FF 24). The broker may loan funds on margin if needed (FF
21 25). Hambrecht’s claim 36 describes permitting extension of credit to a qualified
22 purchaser (FF 26). Thus, Hambrecht does test for sufficient funds and accepts a
23 margin loan from a broker if needed.
24 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
25 erred in rejecting claims 24-27.
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013