Appeal No. 2002-1475 Page 14
Application No. 09/370,935
quotation system interrogates the vendor’s product database,
Giovannoli does not teach or suggest that the financial data are
inputted into at least a responding one of the remaining
computers in response to the vehicle characteristic data
displayed on the display device of the responding one of the
display terminals, as also recited in independent claims 23 and
28, in the same or greater detail as claim 1.
With respect to independent claim 12, the limitation
“inputting the vehicular financial data units into at least one
of the data responsive computer terminals for display on its
display device in response to the vehicular characteristics data
received by the data responsive computer terminals,” is not met
by Giovannoli and Berent because in the prior art, the financial
data is not inputted into the computer terminal for display in
response to the vehicular characteristics data being received by
the data responsive computer terminal, as the data is obtained by
the quotation system in the buyer's computer interrogating the
vendor’s product database to retrieve pricing information. From
all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed establish
a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 12, 13
and 17-28. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10,
12, 13 and 17-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007