Appeal No. 2003-0901
Application 09/303,368
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of all pending claims
based on the teachings of Blinn. The examiner finds that Blinn
teaches the claimed invention except that Blinn does not teach
two separate processing systems, that is, a pre-processing system
and a processing system. The examiner finds that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to modify the integrated Blinn system
so as to split the processing disclosed therein into two separate
processing systems as claimed [answer, pages 4-5].
Appellants argue that their invention relates to an
integrated system for pre-processing Electronic Sales Orders
(ESOs) or Electronic Purchase Orders (EPOs) in order to validate
certain criteria before routing the same, altered, or additional
ESOs or EPOs to an order processing system. Appellants assert
that the claimed pre-processing is meant to act upon an entire
order before the actual subsequent order placement. Appellants
note that their invention amounts to much more than splitting the
processing into pre-processing and processing. Appellants argue
that Blinn has no disclosure of pre-processing orders as defined
in the present invention. Appellants note that the claimed pre-
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007