Appeal No. 2005-0823
Application No. 10/300,895 Page 13
Turning to the Cogswell reference, appellant asserts “[t]he
Examiner never alleges that the Cogswell article has anything to
do with the independent claims (Office Action, pp. 3-4), but we
address it because it also teaches away from the combination the
Examiner suggests.” Appellant argues (brief, page 14) that the
Cogswell article explains the introduction of the Interactive
Agency Reporting (IAR) which is now in its first stage, which
automates almost all of the agent's weekly sales report to ARC.
Appellant acknowledges the statement of an agent (brief, page 19)
that "[t]hey're still doing weekly reporting, but when will they
start requiring daily reporting. Daily reporting would take away
our flexibility and change our workload." Appellant adds (id.)
that the next paragraph also expresses the opinion of an agent
that the reporting is still weekly, and daily reporting would be
bad. Appellant argues (id.) that”
“not only does the Cogswell article teach away from
daily reporting as the claims require, it conflicts
with the IATA article in reporting the interests of
agents. To the extent that IATA article expressed any
positive reason for combining the IATA article with the
others to show more frequent reporting, the Cogswell
article destroys that reason.”
We note at the outset that the issue before us with respect
to claim 1 is whether the prior art suggests the overall
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007