Ex Parte Itwaru

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 17, 2010

10081265 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 17, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/081,265 02/22/2002 Mark Itwaru SAB-028 9838
36822 7590 09/17/2010
GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C.
60 LONG RIDGE ROAD
SUITE 407
STAMFORD, CT 06902
EXAMINER
AGWUMEZIE, CHARLES C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2010 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
___________ 6
7
Ex parte MARK ITWARU 8
___________ 9
10
Appeal 2009-006760 11
Application 10/081,265 12
Technology Center 3600 13
___________ 14
15
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and JOSEPH 16
A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. 17
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 18
DECISION ON APPEAL1 19
20

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Mark Itwaru (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of a 2
final rejection of claims 1, 4-26, and 28-36, the only claims pending in the 3
application on appeal. 4
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) 5
(2002). 6
SUMMARY OF DECISION2 7
We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 8
THE INVENTION 9
The Appellant invented a method to enhance the security of network 10
transactions. Specification 1. 11
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 12
exemplary claims 1 and 22, which are reproduced below [bracketed matter 13
and some paragraphing added]. 14
1. A method for enhancing security of network transactions, 15
comprising: 16
[1] receiving information relating to a pending transaction 17
between a vendor server and a client; 18

2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed April 30, 2007) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 19,
2007), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 9, 2007), and
Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed May 9, 2006).
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

3
[2] receiving private network access information for 1
accessing a private network and a transaction identifier from a 2
transaction server system; 3
[3] provisioning a set of computer readable instructions with 4
transaction-specific information comprising said transaction 5
identifier and said private network access information; 6
[4] sending a message addressed to said client over said 7
public Internet with said set of computer readable instructions 8
having said transaction-specific information, said set of 9
computer readable instructions comprising access instructions 10
for connecting said client to said transaction server system on 11
said private network such that sensitive information relating to 12
said transaction is directed to said transaction server system. 13
14
22. A method for enhancing security of network transactions, 15
comprising: 16
[1] receiving information relating to a pending transaction 17
over a secure link, said information including access 18
information for a data product, and a purchase amount; 19
[2] determining an appropriate chargeable telephone number 20
based upon said purchase amount; 21
[3] storing a transaction identifier, said telephone number, 22
and said access information; and 23
[4] returning said transaction identifier and said telephone 24
number over said secure link. 25
26
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

4
THE REJECTIONS345 1
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 2
Klingman US 5,729,594 Mar. 17, 1998
Apte US 5,778,173 Jul. 7, 1998
Paik et al. US 6,675,008 B1 Jan. 6, 2004
Underwood US 6,704,873 B1 Mar. 9, 2004
Matsuda et al. US 2003/0195843 A1 Oct. 16, 2003
Furman et al. EP 0926611 A2 Dec. 17, 1998
3
Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as 4
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which 5
the Appellant regards as the invention. 6
Claims 1, 4-16, 18-21, and 34-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 7
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Apte. 8
Claims 22-25, 28, and 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as 9
being anticipated by Furman. 10
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 11
Apte and Klingman. 12

3 The Examiner rejected claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Underwood, however, this claim as been cancelled. App. Br.
5-6. As such, this rejection is moot.
4 The Examiner has withdrawn the previously asserted rejection of claim 36
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Ans. 3.
5 The Examiner has withdrawn the previously asserted rejection of claim 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

5
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 1
Apte and Matsuda. 2
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 3
Furman and Matsuda. 4
Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 5
Furman and Paik. 6
7
ISSUES 8
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 36 under 35 9
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and 10
distinctly claim the subject matter which the Appellant regards as the 11
invention turns on whether a person with ordinary skill in the art would have 12
understood what was being claimed by the limitations recited in claim 36. 13
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4-16, 18-14
21, and 34-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Apte turns 15
on whether Apte describes limitations [3] and [4] of claim 1. 16
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 22-25, 28, 17
and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Furman turns on 18
whether Furman describes limitation [2] of claim 22. 19
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17 under 35 20
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Apte and Klingman turns on whether 21
the Appellant’s arguments in support of claim 1 are found persuasive. 22

and distinctly claim the subject matter which the Appellant regards as the
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

6
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 26 under 35 1
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Apte and Matsuda turns on whether 2
Apte and Matsuda describe all of the limitations of claim 26. 3
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 29 under 35 4
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Furman and Matsuda turns on whether 5
the Appellant’s arguments in support of claim 22 are found persuasive. 6
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 33 under 35 7
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Furman and Paik turns on whether the 8
Appellant’s arguments in support of claim 22 are found persuasive. 9
10
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 11
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 12
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 13
Facts Related to the Prior Art 14
Apte 15
01. Apte is directed to a method and apparatus for performing 16
transactions such as purchases over the World Wide Web. Apte 17
1:6-10. 18
02. Apte describes a transaction that begins with a user selecting to 19
purchase a product. Apte 2:44-48. A then vendor generates and 20
transmits a purchase order number to the user and a transaction 21
server that is isolated from the Internet. Apte 2:44-48. The 22

invention. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

7
system uses a proprietary protocol that operates over a telephone 1
link. Apte 2:50-53. The vendor directs the user to contact the 2
transaction server and provides the user with the server’s 3
telephone number, which may be an 800 number, and the user’s 4
computer initiates contact with the transaction server. Apte 3:47-5
50, 4:64-67, and Fig. 2. This access information can be displayed 6
on a web page, stored locally on the user computer, or retrieved by 7
the user on a directory located in a secure communication system. 8
Apte 4:1-15. The computer automatically uses the URL of the 9
vendor to attempt to retrieve the number; the computer then 10
automatically attempts to retrieve the number from a locally stored 11
directory; and then prompts the user to enter the number if number 12
has still not been found. Apte 4:18-26. After communication has 13
been established, the user enters the purchase order number and 14
approves the purchase by submitting credit card information. 15
Apte 4:30-34. Once the transaction is complete, the user 16
computer ends the communication session with the transaction 17
server and resumes communication with the WWW. Apte 4:36-18
40. The user can be provided with software to be executed on the 19
user computer to automatically perform the transition in 20
communication between the WWW and the transaction server. 21
Apte 3:15-20. The communication session between the user 22
computer and the transaction server is configured to appear to the 23
user as a WWW communication such that the user is virtually 24
unaware that the user computer has suspended communication 25
with the WWW and has initiated communication with the 26
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

8
transaction server. Apte 4:44-52. The system can be run in both 1
directions; either the user’s computer initiates contact with the 2
transaction server or the transaction server initiates contact with 3
the user computer. Apte. 4:64-67. 4
Furman 5
03. Furman is directed to the validation of electronic transactions. 6
Furman 1:5-7. 7
04. Furman describes a method that begins with a customer placing 8
an order with a vendor by using a computer and connecting to a 9
vender server via the Internet. Furman 5:12-15. The vendor 10
server creates a unique transaction identifier used to identify the 11
transaction and transmits the identifier to the customer via the 12
Internet. Furman 5:34-36 and 5:54-56. The vendor server also 13
transmits a telephone number that the user must call in order to 14
validate the transaction. Furman 5:56-58. The telephone number 15
may be a 900 number that results in a charge to the customer’s 16
telephone bill. Furman 6:1-5. The validating system requires the 17
user to enter the transaction identifier and uses the transaction 18
identifier to determine the appropriate vendor. Furman 6:41-44 19
and 7:6-8. The validation system then connects to the vendor 20
server to retrieve pricing information and transmits the pricing 21
information to the customer on the telephone call. Furman 7:29-22
31 and 7:39-43. The customer then responds to the validation 23
system on whether the customer accepts or declines the 24
transaction. Furman 7:50-55. 25
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

9
Underwood 1
05. Underwood is directed to software framework designs and 2
providing a global internetworking gateway architecture. 3
Underwood 1:6-8. 4
Klingman 5
06. Klingman is directed to a system providing on-line secure 6
communications using a telephone system or a digital network for 7
performing electronic shopping. Klingman 1:8-13. 8
07. Klingman describes that a user connects to a networks system 9
to potentially purchase products and upon the selection of an item 10
a telephone number, such as a 900 number, is communicated to 11
the user to complete the transaction. Klingman 7:10-24. Software 12
residing on the user’s system automates the transaction operations 13
with little human interaction. Klingman 18:34-37. A router 14
interprets the TCP/IP address from the URL and routes them to 15
the merchant’s server. Klingman 18:39-42. 16
Matsuda 17
08. Matsuda is directed to systems and methods for conducting 18
electronic commerce between individuals. Matsuda ¶ 0003. 19
09. Matsuda describes a system where a user contacts a transaction 20
server and provides details surrounding a transaction, including an 21
already established account ID. Matsuda ¶ 0017. The other party 22
to the transaction confirms the details of the transaction and 23
authorizes the transaction. Matsuda ¶’s 0018-0019. In preparing 24
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

10
the transaction, the transaction server will create a message that 1
includes a transaction ID and a period of validity. Matsuda ¶ 2
0068. The message is sent to the buyer and seller and includes a 3
URL to the transaction server such that the buyer need only click 4
on to the URL to connect to the transaction server. Matsuda ¶ 5
0069. When contacting the transaction server, the user submits 6
his transaction ID, account ID, and password. Matsuda ¶ 0070. 7
Paik 8
10. Paik is directed to a caller information providing apparatus and 9
a caller information transmitting method in a mobile radio 10
communication network. Paik 1:10-13. 11
11. Paik describes that the related art solves the demand to know 12
who is calling before receiving the call by providing a caller line 13
identification (CLID) service that provides the telephone number 14
and the name of the caller through a display. Paik 1:20-28. 15
ANALYSIS 16
Claim 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing 17
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the 18
Appellant regards as the invention 19
The Examiner found that it is unclear how a client can connect to a 20
WWW server without a modem. Ans. 4. The Appellant contends that the 21
Examiner has failed to point to any portion of claim 36 that fails to distinctly 22
claim the invention. App. Br. 19. 23
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

11
We agree with the Appellant. The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 1
§ 112, second paragraph, is whether “those skilled in the art would 2
understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the 3
specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 4
1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986)(citations omitted). 5
Claim 36 recites displaying access instructions and the transaction ID to 6
the client if the indication of resources indicates that the client lacks a 7
modem. Claim 36 depends on claim 13, which depends on claim 12. Claim 8
12 recites that the client receives a message over the public Internet and 9
provides access instructions to a private network. That is, a user connects to 10
the public Internet and receives information on the Internet on how to 11
connect to the private network in claim 12. If the user does not have a 12
modem, the user is provided other access instructions in claim 36. As such, 13
a person with ordinary skill in the art would have understood what is being 14
claimed. 15
The Examiner’s rejection and argument seem to be based on the alleged 16
contradiction of how a user is connected to the public Internet to receive 17
access instructions, but then not have a modem to connect to the private 18
network. We find that this is not a contradiction because there are several 19
ways that a user can connect to the public Internet, including the use of a 20
network interface card, and as such a user need not only have a modem to 21
connect to the Internet. As such, the language recited in claim 36 is clear 22
and satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. 23
24
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

12
Claims 1, 4-16, 18-21, and 34-35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as 1
being anticipated by Apte 2
The Appellant first contends that (1) Apte fails to describe limitations [3] 3
and [4] of claim 1. App. Br. 6-7. The Appellant specifically argues that 4
Apte describes that the vendor directs the user of a computer to contact the 5
transaction server, whereas the claims require directing the user computer to 6
contact the transaction server. App. Br. 7. 7
We disagree with the Appellant. Limitation [3] requires including 8
transaction specific information, consisting of a transaction identifier and 9
private network access information, in the computer readable instructions. 10
Limitation [4] further requires sending a message over the public Internet 11
with the transaction specific information and computer readable instructions 12
for connecting to a private network. 13
Apte describes a transaction system that when a user selects an item for 14
purchase on the World Wide Web, the vendor provides the user and a 15
transaction server with a purchase order number. FF 02. Apte specifically 16
describes that the transaction server is isolated from the public Internet. FF 17
02. The vendor provides the user with the server’s telephone number and 18
directs the user to contact the server. FF 02. 19
Apte explicitly describes that the user’s computer has software to initiate 20
connection with the transaction server and the connection from the World 21
Wide Web to the transaction server can be done seamlessly such that the 22
user is unaware of the change in connection. FF 02. That is, the user 23
computer, not just the user, initiates contact with the transaction server and 24
must be automatically connecting to the transaction server in order for a user 25
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

13
to be unaware of the connection. As such, Apte describes limitations [3] and 1
[4] of claim 1. 2
The Appellant further contends that (2) Apte fails to describe that the 3
private network access information comprises a flat rate telephone number 4
or a fixed charge per minute telephone number and a number of minutes, as 5
per claims 5-6. App. Br. 8. We disagree with the Appellant. 6
As noted by the Examiner, Apte describes providing the user with the 7
telephone number for the transaction server and the transaction server is on a 8
private network. FF 02. Apte explicitly describes that the telephone number 9
can be an 800 number. An 800 number is a free telephone number. That is, 10
an 800 number has a fixed rate of zero cents per minute. The Appellant has 11
not provided any further rationale to distinguish claims 5-6 from Apte. As 12
such, Apte describes a fixed charge per minute telephone number and the 13
Appellant’s argument is not found persuasive. 14
The Appellant also contends that (3) Apte fails to describe that prior to 15
sending a message with instructions to connect to the transaction system, 16
sending a location of the instructions over the public Internet, as per claims 17
7-9. App. Br. 8-9. We disagree with the Appellant. 18
As noted by the Examiner, Apte describes that the user computer first 19
attempts to use the universal resource locator (URL) of the vendor to 20
retrieve the phone number or location of the transaction server. FF 02. If 21
this fails, the user computer attempts to retrieve the number from a locally 22
stored directory. FF 02. Finally, if this attempt also fails the user is then 23
prompted to enter the telephone number for the transaction server. FF 02. 24
As such, prior to sending a message to the user, the location of the 25
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

14
transaction server may be retrieved from the vendor URL, which resides on 1
the public Internet. 2
The Appellant additionally contends that (4) Apte fails to describe the 3
set of computer readable instructions comprise a second code segment that 4
causes the client to pass transaction-specific information to the transaction 5
server system, as per claim 11. App. Br. 9. We disagree with the Appellant. 6
Apte describes that the message sent to the user includes transaction 7
specific information, which includes the purchase order number and 8
instructions on contacting the transaction server. FF 02. A user is required 9
to provide transaction specific information, such as the purchase order 10
number, when establishing a connection with the transaction server. FF 02. 11
Apte further describes that the user computer can contain software that 12
seamlessly disconnects from the World Wide Web and connects to the 13
transaction server such that the user is unaware that such a connection has 14
been established. FF 02. As such, the client contains computer software or 15
a code segment that passes transaction specific information to the transaction 16
server. 17
The Appellant next contends that (5) Apte fails to describe sending a 18
message addressed to the client over the public Internet with a set of 19
instructions having transaction-specific information and prior to sending this 20
message, sending a set-up message with a set of instructions for determining 21
resources of the client for connecting to the private network, as per claim 12. 22
App. Br. 9-10 and Reply Br. 4. We disagree with the Appellant. 23
As discussed supra, Apte describes software that automatically connects 24
the user computer to the transaction server to complete the transaction. FF 25
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

15
02. The software makes a determination of how to connect to the 1
transaction server. FF 02. The Appellant specifically argues that Apte’s 2
software does not automatically configure the client. Reply Br. 4. 3
However, each transaction in Apte has a different purchase order 4
number and each connection to the transaction server requires that purchase 5
order number. As such, each transaction between the user computer and the 6
transaction server is configured with the required purchase order number for 7
that transaction. 8
The Appellant further contends that (6) Apte fails to describe the 9
limitations recited in claims 13-14. App. Br. 11-12. We disagree with the 10
Appellant. 11
Claim 13 requires receiving an indication of the resources of the client 12
and provisioning instructions to connecting to the private network based on 13
the indicated resources. Claim 14 only requires the computer readable 14
instructions of claim 1 to include instructions to determining the resources of 15
the client. Apte describes that the software on the user computer attempts to 16
locate the telephone number for the transaction server in the vendor’s URL 17
or on a locally stored directory. FF 02. That is, the software is determining 18
the location of the resources needed to connect to the transaction server. 19
The claims are broadly phrased such that the term “resources” 20
encompass the capability to locate the telephone number of the transaction 21
server. As such, Apte describes determining the resources of the client and 22
instructing the client to perform actions, such as retrieve the telephone 23
number from the local directory, based on the resources of the client. 24
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

16
The Appellant contends that (7) Apte fails to describes sending said 1
information relating to a pending transaction to said transaction server 2
system over a secure link prior to receiving a transaction identifier and 3
private network access information, as per claim 15. We disagree with the 4
Appellant. 5
Apte describes in detail the process where information is sent to the user 6
computer and the user computer initiates contact with the transaction server. 7
FF 02. However, Apte contemplates that the procedure can be changed such 8
that the transaction server initiates contact with the user computer. FF 02. 9
In such a procedure, the vendor would transmit pending transaction 10
information to the transaction server prior to the receipt of private network 11
access information and a transaction identifier. As such, Apte describes 12
claim 15. 13
The Appellant also contends that (8) Apte fails to describe the 14
limitations of claim 21. App. Br. 13 and Reply Br. 4-5. We disagree with 15
the Appellant. 16
Claim 21 recites the same limitations found in claim 14 and the 17
Appellant submit similar arguments in support of claim 21 as submitted for 18
claim 14. As such, the Appellant’s arguments in support of claim 21 are not 19
found persuasive for the same reasons as claim 14 discussed supra. 20
21
Claims 22-25, 28, and 30-32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being 22
anticipated by Furman 23
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

17
The Appellant contends that Furman fails to describe determining an 1
appropriate chargeable telephone number based on the purchase amount, as 2
required by claim 22. App. Br. 14 and Reply Br. 5. 3
We agree with the Appellant. Furman describes a system that validates 4
electronic transactions. FF 03. A vendor creates a transaction identifier and 5
transmits the transaction identifier and a telephone number to the user. FF 6
04. The telephone number may be a 900 number that results in a charge to 7
the customer’s telephone bill. FF 04. However, Furman fails to describe 8
determining an appropriate telephone number based on the purchase amount, 9
as required by limitation [2] of claim 22. Furman specifically fails to 10
indicate whether the telephone number provided to the user is in any part 11
based on the purchase amount. As such, Furman fails to anticipate claim 22. 12
Since this issue is dispositive as to the rejections towards these claims, 13
we need not reason the remaining arguments. 14
15
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Apte 16
and Klingman 17
The Appellant contends that Apte and Klingman fail to describe the 18
limitations of dependent claim 17 because Apte and Klingman fail to 19
describes limitations [3] and [4] of independent claim 1. App Br. 12-13. 20
We disagree with the Appellant. The Appellant’s argument that Apte fails to 21
describe limitations [3] and [4] of claim 1 was not found persuasive supra 22
and is not persuasive here for the same reasons. 23
24
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

18
Claim 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Apte 1
and Matsuda 2
The Appellant also contends that Furman fails to describe all of the 3
limitations of claim 26. App. Br. 15-16 and Reply Br. 5-6. We disagree 4
with the Appellant. Claim 26 requires a client to dial and establish a 5
connection with a specific telephone number; send transaction specific 6
information; receive a message with a URL and password; drop the 7
connection; connect to the URL over a public Internet; and display the 8
password. 9
As discussed supra, Apte describes that a user selects an item to 10
purchase from a vendor and then receives a message from the vendor with a 11
URL or telephone number for the transaction server and the purchase order 12
number. FF 02. The user computer then drops the connection with the 13
vendor and establishes a connection with the transaction server. FF 02. As 14
such, Apte describes all of the limitations of claim 26, except for the 15
limitation requiring that the password be displayed after connecting to the 16
URL. 17
Matsuda describes a system where individuals can perform transactions. 18
FF 08. In communicating with the transaction server, a user submits his 19
transaction ID, account ID, and password. That is, the user enters his 20
transaction ID, account ID, and password and it is displayed to the 21
transaction server. As such, the combination of Apte and Matsuda describe 22
all of the limitations of claim 26. 23
24
25
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

19
1
Claim 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 2
Furman and Matsuda 3
The Appellant contends that Furman fails to describe determining an 4
appropriate chargeable telephone number based on the purchase amount, as 5
per claim 29, for the same reasons presented in support of claim 22 supra. 6
App. Br. 17-18. We agree with the Appellant. The Appellant’s arguments 7
were found persuasive supra and are found persuasive here for the same 8
reasons. 9
10
Claim 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 11
Furman and Paik 12
The Appellant contends that Furman fails to describe determining an 13
appropriate chargeable telephone number based on the purchase amount, as 14
per claim 33, for the same reasons presented in support of claim 22 supra. 15
App. Br. 18-19. We agree with the Appellant. The Appellant’s arguments 16
were found persuasive supra and are found persuasive here for the same 17
reasons. 18
19
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 20
The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second 21
paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject 22
matter which the Appellant regards as the invention. 23
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

20
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4-16, 18-21, and 34-35 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Apte. 2
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 22-25, 28, and 30-32 under 35 3
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Furman. 4
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 5
as unpatentable over Apte and Klingman. 6
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 7
as unpatentable over Apte and Matsuda. 8
The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 9
unpatentable over Furman and Matsuda. 10
The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 11
unpatentable over Furman and Paik. 12
13
DECISION 14
To summarize, our decision is as follows. 15
• The rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as 16
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter 17
which the Appellant regards as the invention is not sustained. 18
• The rejection of claims 1, 4-16, 18-21, and 34-35 under 35 U.S.C. 19
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Apte is sustained. 20
• The rejection of claims 22-25, 28, and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 21
as being anticipated by Furman is not sustained. 22
Appeal 2009-006760
Application 10/081,265

21
• The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 1
over Apte and Klingman is sustained. 2
• The rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 3
over Apte and Matsuda is sustained. 4
• The rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 5
over Furman and Matsuda is not sustained. 6
• The rejection of claims claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 7
unpatentable over Furman and Paik is not sustained. 8
9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 10
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 11
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007). 12
AFFIRMED-IN-PART 13
14
15
16
mev 17
18
Address 19
GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. 20
60 LONG RIDGE ROAD 21
SUITE 407 22
STAMFORD CT 06902 23