Appeal No. 2002-1475 Page 4
Application No. 09/370,935
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellants' arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we affirm-in-
part. We begin with independent claims 1, 12, 23, and 28. The
examiner’s position (final rejection, page 4) is that Giovannoli
does not specifically disclose vehicular characteristic and
financial data. To overcome this deficiency in Giovannoli, the
examiner turns to Berent for this feature. The examiner asserts
(id.) that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to combine the
teachings of Giovannoli’ computerized quotation and Berent et al.
vehicular auction information system in order to sell or buy
vehicle using direct quota system. One would have been motivated
to minimize the time consuming task of maintaining and updating a
central database as taught by Giovannoli.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007