Appeal 2007-2978
Application 10/744,130
D. Analysis
The patentability of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2002) depends on
whether the claimed subject matter is obvious over Yamazoe and Vittal.
We will not sustain the rejection because (1) we are unable to find all the
details of step b) in the cited references and (2) the Examiner has not articulated an
apparent reason with logical underpinning why one of ordinary skill would have
taken the disclosure from Vittal and incorporated it into the Yamazoe method and
thus arrive at the claimed method.
Step b) provides for “[t]ransferring said catalog file to said marketplace site
through a catalog gateway using the catalog transfer protocol, the supplier
segmenting the catalog file into a plurality of sequential segments and sending the
catalog file segments to the catalog gateway, wherein each catalog file segment is
numbered and includes a flag denoting whether or not the catalog segment is the
last catalog file segment, the catalog gateway acknowledging each catalog file
segment received from the supplier, the catalog gateway reassembling the catalog
file segments into the catalog file and storing the catalog file in a local storage.”
A number of details recited in this step are not shown. For example, we find no
teaching or suggestion for the catalog gateway acknowledging each catalog file
segment received from the supplier. Nor do we find catalog file segments
numbered and including flags denoting whether or not a catalog segment is the last
catalog file segment. Regarding this latter limitation, the Examiner refers to
paragraph 93 of Yamazoe which discloses a retrieval function performing a tag
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013