Appeal No. 2002-1475 Page 5
Application No. 09/370,935
Appellants assert (brief, pages 7 and 8) that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because
the mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
suggested by the examiner does not make the modification obvious
unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
combination. Appellants further assert (brief, pages 9-14) that
the prior art fails to show the recited “ANY SELECTED COMPUTER.”
Appellants argue (brief, page 11) that both Berent and Giovannoli
use a hub and spoke computer terminal system. It is argued
(brief, page 12) that there is no teaching or suggestion in
Giovannoli why the hub, the central system computer would
transmit data to both the buyer computer terminals and the seller
computer terminals. It is further argued (brief, page 13) that
upon eliminating the hub as the “any selected one” of the
computer terminals, the prior art systems would be rendered
inoperable. Appellants further assert (brief, page 14) that “the
applied art teaches automatic responses, not responses made after
data is displayed on the responding computer terminal.” It is
further argued (brief, page 16) that the PTO relies upon
hindsight to supply deficiencies in the prior art because in
Giovannoli, the quotation system interrogates the vendor’s’s
product database to retrieve pricing and other information
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007