Appeal 2007-3540
Application 09/946,616
1 The Appellants invented a computerized electronic auction payment system for
2 real-time payment for an item won on an electronic auction, where users access the
3 computerized electronic auction payment system by remote terminals via an
4 electronic network, such as the Internet (Specification 1:8-12).
5 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
6 claim 1, which is reproduced in the Analysis section below.
7 This appeal arises from the Examiner’s Final Rejection, mailed July 24, 2006.
8 The Appellants filed an Appeal Brief in support of the appeal on October 10, 2006,
9 and an Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief was mailed on January 24, 2007.
10 PRIOR ART
11 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
12 Cornelius US 6,629,081 B1 Sep. 30, 2003
13 Bogosian US 6,760,470 B1 Jul. 6, 2004
14 REJECTIONS
15 Claims 1, 11-13, 32, 50-54, and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
16 anticipated by Bogosian.
17 Claims 2-10, 14-301, 33-45, 55, 56, and 58-61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
18 103(a) as unpatentable over Bogosian and Cornelius.
1 Claims 14-30 are not included in the statement of the statutory basis for the
rejection (Final Rejection 5 and Answer 7), but they are included within the
analysis of the rejection and we therefore treat them as being within the scope of
the rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013