Ex Parte Antosz - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2004-2261                                                                 Page 2                
              Application No. 09/494,690                                                                                 



                                                    BACKGROUND                                                           
                     The appellant's invention relates generally to supply chain mapping, and more                       
              particularly to a computer-implemented system for identifying opportunities and risks in                   
              supply chains (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the                
              appendix to the appellant's brief.                                                                         


                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                     
              appealed claims are:                                                                                       
              Petchenkine et al. (Petchenkine)          6,380,951                    April 30, 2002                      
              Bush, Jr. (Bush)                          6,486,899                    Nov. 26, 2002                       


                     Claims 2 to 6, 8 to 12 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                         
              unpatentable over Bush in view of Petchenkine.                                                             


                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                       
              the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer                         
              (mailed March 24, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the                            
              rejection, and to the brief (filed January 13, 2004) and reply brief (filed May 24, 2004) for              
              the appellant's arguments thereagainst.                                                                    









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007