Appeal 2007-0770
Application 09/752,330
1 the user in response to an order request (the request which the Examiner equates to
2 the request for an entitled price).
3 ANALYSIS
4
5 Claim 1 recites “obtaining the entitled price within the private electronic
6 environment in real time while the requestor waits.” Independent claims 13, 25,
7 and 37 recite similar limitations. As discussed above we consider the term
8 “entitled price” to be a reference to non-functional descriptive material and as such
9 will not differentiate the claimed invention from the prior art. Nonetheless, the
10 independent claims do recite that the “entitled price” is requested by a user and
11 returned to the user in real time, after routing the request between a public and
12 private environment, while the user waits. As discussed supra we do not find that
13 Lidow teaches or suggests that any of the real time reports are returned to the user
14 in response to an order request, the request which the Examiner equates to the
15 request for an entitled price. Thus, we do not find sufficient evidence to support
16 the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 25, and 37.
17 We recognize that dependent claims 4 through 8, 12, 16 through 20, 24, 28
18 through 32, 36, 40 through 44, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
19 being unpatentable over Lidow and additional evidence. Although Appellants have
20 presented no arguments directed to these claims, the Examiner’s rejection of these
21 claims builds upon the rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 25, and 37. The
22 Examiner has not asserted nor do we find that that the additional evidence makes
23 up for the above noted deficiency in the rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 25,
24 and 37. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4 through 8, 12, 16
25 through 20, 24, 28 through 32, 36, 40 through 44, and 48, for the reasons discussed
26 with respect to claims 1, 13, 25, and 37.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013