Appeal 2007-2742
Application 09/764,618
1 Independent Claim 28
2 Appellants separately argue claim 28, which recites a "plurality of accounts
3 being configured for storing funds therein ... [and] application software for
4 maintaining the plurality of accounts and for periodically effecting payment for the
5 at least one of the plurality of online auction registered users by debiting an
6 account of the plurality of accounts and crediting at least one account,…"
7 (emphasis added).
8 The Examiner found that Bogosian describes all of the elements of claim 28
9 (Answer 16:Bottom ¶ - 17:Top ¶).
10 The Appellants contend that Bogosian does not disclose or suggest the same
11 limitation above that was also in claim 21. We find that Bogosian does describe
12 that limitation for the same reasons we found for claim 1 and 21, supra.
13 The Appellants further argue that there is no disclosure or suggestion that the
14 system described by Hambrecht is for periodically effecting payment. The
15 Appellants provide dictionary definitions for the word “periodic” as (1) recurring
16 at intervals of time; (2) occurring or appearing at regular intervals; or (3) repeated
17 at irregular intervals; intermittent. The Appellants then state that “Bogosian et al.
18 at best suggests periodically effecting payment by a buyer at regular or irregular
19 intervals.” (Br. 22:First and second full ¶’s.)
20 We find that, as the Appellants have admitted, Bogosian suggests periodically
21 effecting payment by a buyer according to at least one of the definitions set forth
22 by the Appellants.
23 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
24 erred in rejecting claims 24-27.
18
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013