Appeal 2007-1297
Application 10/082,235
Appellant’s arguments in response assert that the Examiner has not
shown how each of the claimed features is present in the disclosure of Curtis
so as to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. Appellant’s arguments
(Br. 9-11) focus on the contention that, in contrast to the claimed invention,
Curtis does not disclose the displaying of an incident ticket in which the
incident ticket itself includes tracking rules which are editable by a user
viewing the ticket.
After reviewing the disclosure of Curtis in light of the arguments of
record, however, we are in general agreement with the Examiner’s position
as stated in the Answer. Our interpretation of the disclosure of Curtis
coincides with that of the Examiner, i.e., the information related to the
“fraud cases” which is presented and displayed to a fraud analyst at
computer workstations 152a-152n can reasonably be considered to
correspond to the claimed “incident ticket.” The presented fraud case
information in Curtis also permits a user to edit tracking rules associated
with the fraud case. (Curtis, col. 12, ll. 1-5.) As further indicated by Curtis
(col. 19, ll. 35-40), the fraud analyst may edit the tracking rules by either
entering a rule suggested by pattern recognition system 132 or by creating a
new rule. We would also point out that, to whatever extent Appellant’s
argument (Br. 10) that the displayed incident ticket “itself” includes editable
tracking rules suggest that the ticket is presented on a single screen display,
we find no claim language which limits the displayed incident ticket to a
single display screen.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed limitations
are present in the disclosure of Curtis, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013