Appeal 2007-3540
Application 09/946,616
1 [ii] automatically transferring at least a portion of the
2 deducted funds into at least one account for automatically
3 effecting payment for the user of the electronic auction
4 web site.
5 Within this claim, the issues surround the use of accounts and funds and
6 automatic operation of the process. Thus claim construction of these terms must
7 first be resolved. None of the terms “account,” “funds,” or “automatic” are
8 lexicographically defined within the record (FF 01, 03, and 05). Thus we construe
9 them according the broadest reasonable interpretation according to their ordinary
10 and usual meaning. Thus, we construe “funds” to mean a source of supply of
11 money or some other financial resource (FF 02); “account” to mean a record of a
12 customer having a business or credit relationship (FF 04); and “automatically” to
13 mean acting or operating in a manner essentially independent of external influence
14 (FF 06).
15 The Examiner found that Bogosian anticipates claim 1 (Answer 4).
16 The Appellants contend that Bogosian does not anticipate an automatic
17 payment method, let alone, receiving authorization from a user prior to the
18 beginning of an electronic auction to execute an automatic payment method after
19 the conclusion of the electronic auction. They further contend that Bogosian does
20 not anticipate automatically deducting funds from a payment account
21 corresponding to the user of the electronic auction web site. The Appellants
22 explain that Bogosian’s description of requiring manual action (Br. 18:First ¶) and
23 charging a user's credit card for effecting payment (Br. 19:First full ¶) is counter to
24 such automatic payment as claimed. The Appellants acknowledge that Bogosian
25 employs an embodiment that relies on Amazon’s 1-click service, but argue that
26 Bogosian imposes a manual email operation (Br. 17:Last full ¶).
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013