Appeal No. 2001-1461
Application 08/921,130
This is the first time the examiner explains why Gardner is
thought to anticipate the "type of request" limitations.
Appellants respond that "the companies referred to in
Gardner are vendors offering items for sale to a requestor"
(RBr3) and "Appellant respectfully submits that the company or
division of a company is not equivalent to determining the 'type
of the request'" (RBr3).
Gardner states that "the rule base 60 determines variations
based upon the requester" (col. 7, lines 63-64) which implies
that system determines which of the companies 12, 14, and 16 in
Fig. 1 is making the request. The examiner interprets the "type
of the request" as equivalent to the identity of the requester
company. However, we consider this an unreasonable claim
interpretation because it does not give words their ordinary
meaning. A "type of request" is not the same thing as the
"identity of the requester." Gardner is directed toward a single
type of request, a requisition for the procurement of goods
and/or services (col. 1, lines 12-15), which may come from many
different companies. Thus, Gardner does not disclose determining
a "type of the request" or determining approval processing "based
on the type of the request" and does not anticipate claims 1, 16,
or 19. While appellant argues other differences, this
difference is enough to establish lack of anticipation. The
obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 12 does not cure the
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007