Appeal 2007-2978
Application 10/744,130
Appellants, in the Appeal Brief1, argue the claims together.
A. Issue
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
holding the combination Yamazoe and Vittal would have rendered the subject
matter of claim 1 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention.
B. Findings of Fact
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. In the Final Rejection (p. 2), the Examiner stated that Yamazoe disclosed all
the features of the claimed method except step b), relying on paragraph 19 of
Yamazoe. In the Answer (pp. 6-7), the Examiner clarified that “Yamazoe
discloses transferring a catalog to a marketplace site through a catalog gateway
using catalog transfer protocol, tagging (or numbering each element to indicate
the last element, and acknowledging each catalog file and storing the catalog
file in a local storage .. .” The Examiner directed attention to Fig. 2 and
paragraphs 19, 50, and 93. (Answer 7).
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,”
filed Sep. 26, 2006), the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Jan. 23, 2007),
and to the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 21, 2007).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013