Appeal 2007-3540
Application 09/946,616
1 more than demonstrate that the payments that Bogosian makes may occur on a
2 periodic basis rather than all at once. Since the payments are still made by
3 Bogosian’s system, the system’s accounts would be used, and not the seller’s.
4 Indeed, in Bogosian, the seller has no mechanism for transacting payments other
5 than using Bogosian’s system. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of
6 ordinary skill in the art to have made periodic payments with Bogosian’s system
7 and accounts for auction transactions such as those described by Cornelius.
8 The Appellants also repeat their contentions from claim 1. We find those
9 contended elements described by Bogosian for the same reasons we stated in claim
10 1.
11 The Appellants also argue that the Examiner has not applied Cornelius in the
12 analysis of claim 60’s rejection. The argument appears to be essentially that the
13 format of the rejection is improper by not explicitly reciting the differences
14 between Bogosian alone and claim 60. Our reviewing court has held that
15 “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness,” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722
16 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Thus, the Examiner’s
17 findings are sufficient to support a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness
18 and the Appellants’ have not sustained their burden of showing the Examiner erred
19 in rejecting claim 60.
20 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
21 erred in rejecting claims 2-10, 14-30, 33-45, 55, 56, and 58-61 under 35 U.S.C. §
22 103(a) as unpatentable over Bogosian and Cornelius.
18
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013