Appeal No. 97-1931
Application 08/364,826
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner's answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the collective evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claims 1-16, 18 and 22-25. We reach the opposite
conclusion with respect to claims 17 and 19-21. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part.
The examiner has rejected each of claims 1-25 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Dworkin when considered in
combination with the skill of the artisan. Dworkin is directed
to a computer which can determine all the products which meet a
user’s requirements, and can indicate to the user the supplier
and cost information for each of the products. The user can then
order the product from the individual supplier based upon the
user’s criteria such as lowest price. Thus, Dworkin relates to a
device for indicating to a customer which supplier can supply
specific products and at what cost.
Before we consider the specific claims on appeal before
us, some general observations are in order. There are initially
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007