Appeal 2007-1235
Application 09/748,125
features recited in these claims. The cited portion of Yang relates to a
process flow in the translation of command strings in a test script and
is completely unrelated to identifying translation error data from
trading partner documents or to providing information to trading
partners based on the identified translation error data. Accordingly,
these features provide additional reasons for the patentability of
claims 21 and 22.
Therefore, these features recited in the dependent claims
discussed above are also not disclosed or suggested by the applied
prior art and they provide additional reasons for the patentability of
these claims.
Appeal Br. 7-8. Emphasis original.
C. Principles of Law
We incorporate herein the principles of law under the Principles of
Law section for the rejection of claims 1-2, 6, 7, and 13-20 above.
D. Analysis
Appellants’ argument (FF 3) is unpersuasive to show error in the
Examiner’s finding because, as with the argument regarding the rejections of
claims 11 and 12, the argument focuses on whether Yang involves trading
documents. However, the issue is not whether Yang anticipates the subject
matter of claims 21 and 22 but whether the combination of Ricker, Puckett,
and Yang would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the subject matter
of claims 21 and 22 such that it would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) (2002). There is no evidence that Yang’s process by which a user is
notified of errors cannot be combined with the Ricker and Puckett processes.
To the contrary, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art reading Yang
23
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013