Appeal 2006-2085
Application 09/810,629
1 We turn next to claims 32-41. The Examiner's position (Answer 5- 6)
2 is that the differences between the prior art and the language of these claims
3 is found only in non-functional descriptive material because the data does
4 not functionally relate to the steps in the method. These claims have not
5 been argued by Appellants with respect to the teachings and suggestions of
6 the applied prior art. Rather, Appellants argue why they consider the claims
7 to be directed to non-functional descriptive material. At the outset, we agree
8 with the Examiner that the particular service provider information is non-
9 functional descriptive material because the fact that the information gathered
10 includes information as to the responsiveness, susceptibility to failure, or
11 security vulnerability of the service provider does not functionally relate to
12 the steps of the method. In any event, we find, for the reasons that follow,
13 that the teachings and suggestions of Gershman and Brockman would have
14 suggested to an artisan the limitations of claims 31-42.
15 We begin with claims 31 and 37. Gershman describes (fact 4)
16 obtaining information about shipping of products. We find that shipping
17 information provides information as to the responsiveness of the service
18 provider because how quickly or slowly a company ships products indicates
19 the responsiveness of the company to its customers. Accordingly, we hold
20 that the combined teachings of Gershman and Brockman would have
21 suggested to an artisan the language of claims 31 and 37. The rejection of
22 claims 31 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained.
23 We turn next to claims 32 and 38. These claims relate to the
24 responsiveness of the service provider being statistically characterized.
25 From the description of Gershman (fact 4) of gathering information and
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013