Appeal No. 2001-1017
Application No. 08/988,151
Without determining whether Muller is nonanalogous art
(appellants' first argument at pages 5-8 of the Brief), we find
that the combination, as presented by the examiner, fails to
disclose the comparing and directing steps as reproduced supra.
Specifically, the portions of Keyser relied upon by the examiner
do not teach comparing the type of request to a stored table of
request types. Column 5, lines 44-48, lists the various types of
banking requests that a customer could make, but says nothing
about comparing an actual request to that list. Further, claim 7
and the referenced lines of column 12 deal with identification of
the type of machine that is accessing the system, not with types
of requests.
Keyser does indicate (column 7, lines 39-41) that the
message transmitted to the host computer may be a request for a
return call from a bank employee. Thus, Keyser suggests that one
type of request is a service request with no automated
fulfillment. Since other types of requests are capable of
automated fulfillment, it would appear that the system must make
a determination as to whether to fulfill the request or to direct
the request to a bank employee. However, nothing in Keyser
teaches or suggests making that determination by comparing the
request to a table of requests, with each request having an
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007