Appeal No. 2004-1200
Application No. 09/871,996
modifying the Levine method and system by respectively
incorporating steps and a processor for determining which of a
plurality of independent service providers should receive each
transaction request on the basis of collected customer
information and transmitting the transaction request to the
determined independent service provider as recited in claims 1
and 29. Furthermore, Schein’s demographic profiles are specific
to individual customers and would not have suggested modifying
the Levine method and system by respectively incorporating steps
and a processor for developing a “customer profile” categorizing
a plurality of “customers” as recited in claims 1 and 29.
Thus, the combined teachings of Levine and Schein do not
justify the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between
the subject matter recited in independent claims 1 and 29 and the
prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and
29, and dependent claims 2 through 5, 14 through 17 and 30
through 33, as being unpatentable over Levine in view of Schein.
As the examiner’s application of Burge, Wong and the
Computer Associates references fails to overcome the noted
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007