Appeal 2007-2070
Application 10/123,457
1 2006. An Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief was mailed on December 12,
2 2006. A Reply Brief was filed on February 12, 2007.
3 PRIOR ART
4 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Treyz US 6,587,835 B1 Jul. 01, 2003
5 REJECTIONS
6 Claims 1-20, 22-42, 45-48, and 51-64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
7 as anticipated by Treyz.
8 Claims 21, 43, 44, 49, 50, 65, and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
9 as unpatentable over Treyz.
10 ISSUES
11 The issues pertinent to this appeal are:
12 • Whether the Appellants have sustained their burden of showing that the
13 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20, 22-42, 45-48, and 51-64 under
14 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Treyz.
15 • Whether the Appellants have sustained their burden of showing that the
16 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21, 43, 44, 49, 50, 65, and 66 under
17 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Treyz.
18 The pertinent issue turns on whether claim 1 recites that the handheld
19 computing device be physically accessed by a representative of the product source
20 itself, and if so whether Treyz describes it.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013