Appeal No. 95-3919
Application No. 07/907,934
The obviousness rejection of claim 147 is sustained
because terminal 10 in Katznelson sends a reply to terminal 11
if use of a product on CD-ROM is not approved.
The obviousness rejection of claim 148 is reversed
because terminal 10 in Katznelson does not send a reply
“within a predetermined time from” the sending of a request
from terminal 11.
The obviousness rejection of claim 149 is sustained
because appellant has not presented any patentability
arguments for this claim.
The obviousness rejection of claims 150 through 152 is
reversed because Katznelson is silent concerning use of one
portion of a product taken from CD-ROM to control another
portion of a product taken from CD-ROM.
The obviousness rejection of claim 153 is reversed
because terminal 11 in Katznelson can not use any of the data
on the CD-ROM “before a reply . . . is received.”
The obviousness rejection of claims 154 through 156 is
reversed because terminal 11 in Katznelson does not transmit
requests to terminal 10 “at periodic intervals.”
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007