Appeal No. 2005-1636
Application No. 09/726,272
software. Appellant argues that Pettitt teaches the use of two
entities to take the place of the claimed third party logging
server. Appellant quotes the claim language with the third party
logging server shown in bold type. We infer from this that
appellant is basically questioning whether Pettitt teaches the
various functions assigned to the third party logging server.
Appellant asserts that the license clearing house of Pettitt does
not meet the claimed third party logging server. Finally,
appellant argues that neither Pettitt nor Robinson teaches
recording transactions between a distributing computer system and
a merchant computer system (brief, pages 7-11).
The examiner responds that appellant’s arguments are not
commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The examiner
notes that claim 37 is absent a specific time sequence regarding
in what order the various steps take place. The examiner makes
it clear that he reads the third party logging server on the
distributor 16 of Pettitt and the merchant on the reseller 17 of
Pettitt. With this reading in mind, the examiner explains how
the method disclosed by Pettitt meets the invention of claim
37 (answer, pages 11-15). Appellant responds by repeating the
arguments made in the brief (reply brief).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007