Appeal No. 1999-0828 Page 6
Application No. 08/526,743
known in the art. The examiner further asserts (id.) that if a
complete saved order is opened, a quote is clearly displayed
without any interaction of the user.
Appellants assert (brief, page 6) that a prima facie case of
obviousness has not been made because the cited prior art does
not teach the display of a default quote as claimed. Appellants
assert that in Greulich, before a quote is displayed, the
parameters provided in the order software (second control means)
must be provided. Appellants argue (brief, page 7) that from
this disclosure of Greulich, it is clear that Greulich does not
display a default quote, but merely displays a screen of
information to prompt the user to enter sufficient information
from which a quote can be provided.
We find that Greulich discloses a first computing means 10
at an order reception facility of a business forms manufacturer
5(...continued)
support a rejection, whether or not in a 'minor capacity,' there would appear
to be no excuse for not positively including the reference in the statement of
rejection." In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA
1970). Here, although the examiner cites Mastering Windows 3.1 (examiner's
answer, page 6), the examiner fails to positively include the reference in the
statement of the rejection (answer, page 3 or final rejection, page 8).
Accordingly, because the reference was not cited in response to a traverse by
appellants and has not been included in the rejection, we will not consider
the reference in deciding this appeal. See also Ex parte Raske, 28 USPQ2d
1304, 1305 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007