Appeal No. 1999-0828 Page 18
Application No. 08/526,743
30-38 (figure 4), and considering the second, third, and fourth
sets of options (figures 5A and 5B) to be sub-options. From all
of the above, the rejection of claims 4 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 9, 17, and 18.
Appellants assert (brief, page 10) that:
Claims 9, 17 and 18 specify a method of storing a first
default quote; displaying the first default, changing
the displayed default quote in response to a user input
change of one or more of the default values contained
in the quote; and storing the changed quote as a second
default quote which the system automatically displays
upon starting a new quote. This feature allows a user
to change a default quote so that one user of the
system may use one default quote and a different user
of the same system may use a different default quote.
We make reference to the final rejection (pages 5 and 6) and the
examiner's answer (pages 7 and 8) for the examiner's position.
With respect to independent claim 17, we make reference to our
findings, supra, with respect to the teachings and suggestions of
Greulich.
With regard to the limitation in claim 17 that the system
automatically displays the second default quote upon starting a
new quote, we find that this limitation is met by the customer
starting a new quote by opening a saved file that is a second
default quote; i.e., a quote that has been has been saved,
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007