Appeal No. 2005-0045 Page 3
Application No. 09/801,093
(Paper No. 11 mailed June 15, 2004) and for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 10, filed March 10, 2004) and
for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the rejection of claims 7 to 10, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hall. We initially note that to support a rejection of a
claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art
reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781,
789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Hall discloses a method for processing orders from customers in a mobile
environment (col. 1, lines 5 to 10). A service provider receives customer location
information from a location determination system and determines which local facility is
closest to the location of the customer and then schedules fulfillment of the order at the
local facility (col. 2, lines 41 to 48; col. 9, lines19 to 24). The Hall method also includes
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007