Appeal 2006-2085
Application 09/810,629
1 Gershman fails to teach or suggest the claimed invention. In the Reply
2 Brief, the only reference to Brockman is a general allegation (Reply Br.
3 14-15) that the Examiner's Answer has not supplied a legally persuasive
4 argument as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify
5 Gershman by the alleged teachings of Brockman, because the Examiner has
6 not cited any suggestion or incentive in the prior art for the proposed
7 modification of the prior art.
8 We additionally note at the outset that with respect to the Examiner's
9 assertion (Answer 3) that Gershman does not specifically disclose that the
10 service providers are ASPs or ISPs, we observe that independent claim 1
11 does not recite that the service provider is an ASP or ISP.
12 From the description in fact 4 that a query is transmitted to a service
13 routine to find price, availability, and shipping information, we find that the
14 service routine operating on the web is a management service. From the
15 disclosure in fact 4 that the system obtains price information and availability
16 and the disclosure of fact 5 that database 1050 includes information about
17 the service provider, we find that the pricing information about a product
18 from a service provider meets the claimed gathering and analyzing
19 characteristics of a service provider. From fact 6, which relates to Fig. 16,
20 relied upon by the Examiner, we find that information about products from a
21 service provider also provides characteristics about the service provider. In
22 addition, from facts 7-9 we find that by providing the customer with
23 information about products and suppliers, as well as objective advice, etc.,
24 formatting the information into a Web page, and returning the page to the
25 customer, we find that a report is generated and forwarded to the customer.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013