Appeal No. 2002-1475 Page 6
Application No. 09/370,935
necessary to respond to the request for quotation, and that the
automatic response in Giovannoli is not a response to vehicular
data characteristics displayed on the display device of the at
least one responding computer. Appellants additionally assert
(brief, page 18) that if the teachings of the references were
combined, the intended function of the references would be
destroyed. It is argued (brief, page 22) that both Giovannoli
and Berent teach automatic response, and that in order to arrive
at the claimed invention, the functionality of the applied art
(i.e., automatic response) would be destroyed. It is
additionally argued (id.) that “[t]here is no teaching or
suggestion in the applied art that the data sent by the sending
computer terminal is first displayed on the display device of the
responding computer terminal before the responding computer
terminal responds.”
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent
upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
examiner is expected to make the factual determinations set forth
in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007