Appeal No. 2004-2044
Application No. 09/476,708
III. Whether the Rejection of Claims 62-63 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the invention as set forth in claim 62. Accordingly,
we reverse.
With respect to dependent claim 62, we note that the
Examiner has relied on Wyman solely to teach "service
subscription" [answer, page 9]. The Wyman reference in
combination with Wood et al. and Reeder fails to cure the
deficiencies of Wood et al. and Reeder noted above with respect
to claim 59. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons as set forth
above.
IV. Whether the Rejection of Claim 67 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the invention as set forth in claim 67. Accordingly,
we reverse.
With respect to dependent claim 67, we note that the
Examiner has relied on Clark et al. solely to teach "data for
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007