Appeal No. 2002-1475 Page 15
Application No. 09/370,935
We turn next to independent claim 30. Appellants argue
(brief, pages 15 and 16) that none of the limitations of claim 30
are met by the prior art, because there is no teaching or
suggestion that the data can be exchanged within a time period
during which the customer remains on the premises of the seller.
Appellants additionally argue (reply brief, page 10) that:
none of the applied art teaches or suggests a
vehicular data exchange system that is used to
exchange vehicular data relating to a trade-in
vehicle of a prospective customer as recited in
claim 30. Further, none of the applied art
teaches or suggests exchanging vehicular data
among a plurality of vehicle dealership users as
recited in claim 30. Furthermore, none of the
applied art teaches or suggests that vehicular
data exchanged among the vehicle dealership users
is exchanged within a time period during which the
prospective customer remains at the dealership as
recited in claim 30.
From our review of Giovannoli, we find that although
Giovannoli discloses (col. 5, lines 40 and 41) that the vendor’s
software permits them to schedule when they wish to communicate
with the quotation system, we find no specific datails in
Giovannoli as to how the scheduling would be carried out.
However, because motor vehicle purchasers can spend several hours
at a car dealership selecting a car and negotiating over the
car’s price, as well as the price be to received for their trade-
in vehicle, we find that in at least some instances, the
vehicular data will be exchanged while the prospective customer
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007