Appeal No. 2004-1959
Application No. 09/465,465
ample support in the disclosure of Gerace for the Examiner’s
conclusion (Answer, page 9) that the “statements” presented to
the user are variable customer documents.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed
limitations are present in the disclosure of Gerace, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of representative claim
1, as well as claims 2, 3, 7, 9-13, and 15-17 which fall with
claim 1, is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection, based on Gerace, of dependent claims 4 and 8,
each argued separately by Appellants, we sustain the rejection of
these claims as well. With respect to dependent claim 4, we find
no error in the Examiner’s assertion of correspondence between
the claimed customer service representative viewing of an
archival document copy and the disclosure in Gerace, at column 7,
lines 5-22, column 17, lines 53 through column 18, line 10, and
column 33, lines 55-60, of the user history viewing object with
user-sponsor access. Similarly, in our view, the use of an
animation feature as set forth in appealed dependent claim 8 is
fully described at column 20, lines 19-25 of Grace.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007