Appeal No. 2002-1846
Application 09/146,199
determined that what the examiner regards as a disclosure in Mindrum for a “price change at
terminal” is not really a “price change at terminal” event. Consequently, the features of
independent claims 20 and 36 have not all been shown by the examiner as disclosed by
Mindrum. Thus, the rejection of dependent claims 21, 22 and 37 as being unpatentable over
Mindrum and Schultz is not supported by sufficient evidence and cannot be sustained.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 17-20, 24, 26-36, and 39-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bass, Orr, and Shimoda is reversed.
The rejection of claims 21, 22 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Mindrum and Brachtl is reversed.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007