Appeal No. 2005-1033 Page 2
Application No. 10/236,460
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a method for ordering an item, such as, e.g.,
hardware, software and/or a service (specification, p. 1). A copy of the dependent
claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief. Claim 9, the
only independent claim on appeal, reads as follows:
A method for ordering production goods, comprising the step of providing
at least one automation component, said automation component automatically
recognizing a need for at least one item and ordering said at least one needed
item, wherein the automation component includes a budget for payment of the
order.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Slotznick 5,983,200 Nov. 9, 1999
Spear et al. (Spear) 6,486,439 Nov. 26, 2002
Claims 9, 19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Slotznick.
Claims 8, 9, 15, 19, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Spear.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007