Appeal No. 2004-1980
Application No. 10/153,200
32. The system as set forth in Claim 31 further
comprising:
a vendor transfer controller located within each of
said plurality of vendor networks, said vendor transfer
controller capable of receiving said first record stored in
said first storage device, and in response to receiving said
first record, transferring an inquiry to said customer
transfer controller in said customer network through said
main controller, wherein said inquiry comprises at least one
of: a message, a data file, a software application and a
document.
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Shkedy 6,260,024 Jul. 10, 2001
(filed Dec. 2, 1998)
Claims 31-55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Shkedy.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is
made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
Appellants and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made
by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
brief have not been considered.
OPINION
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007