Ex Parte Likourezos et al - Page 14

            Appeal 2007-3540                                                                                 
            Application 09/946,616                                                                           

        1       Bogosian describes several implementations of the purchase function.  Several                
        2   embodiments do require manual action, and the Appellants relies on these                         
        3   embodiments to supports their position.  Bogosian also describes alternative                     
        4   embodiments using Amazon’s 1-click service that requires no manual action other                  
        5   than selecting the item to purchase or bid on (FF 15-20).                                        
        6       Bogosian also describes receiving authorization from a user in the form of a                 
        7   set-up operation prior to the beginning of a purchase transaction for Amazon 1-                  
        8   click purchases (FF 16).  How Amazon 1-click accomplishes these purchase and                     
        9   set-up operations are described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,960,411, which Bogosian wholly                
       10   incorporates by reference (FF 14).  Thus, the payment process, which begins after                
       11   selecting the item to be purchased, of Bogosian that employs the Amazon 1-click                  
       12   embodiment requires no manual action.                                                            
       13       The email response to an Amazon 1-click purchase that the Appellants argue                   
       14   requires manual intervention is only one embodiment, for those cases in which the                
       15   process does not determine whether the purchaser is an Amazon 1-click user until                 
       16   the user responds to the email (FF 21).  This would be inapplicable for those                    
       17   embodiments in which purchaser had previously indicated such a status (FF 16).                   
       18       Thus, the Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that                         
       19   Bogosian fails to anticipate an automatic payment method and receiving                           
       20   authorization from a user prior to the beginning of an electronic auction to execute             
       21   an automatic payment method after the conclusion of the electronic auction.                      
       22       The Appellants’ second argument is that the reliance on a credit card to pay the             
       23   seller fails to anticipate automated deduction of funds from a payment account and               
       24   transference to a user (seller) account.  The Appellants’ explanation linking this               
       25   operation to the claimed plurality of payment accounts appears to argue that the                 

                                                     14                                                      


Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013