Appeal No. 2005-1781
Application No. 09/860,407
persuasive of error in the rejection. With respect to
appellants’ general argument that the examiner has made a blanket
rejection, we do not agree. The examiner has clearly considered
each of the elements of claim 11 in the rejection. Appellants
have elected not to argue the specific findings made by the
examiner with respect to each of the claimed elements. Since the
only arguments made by appellants are not persuasive of error in
the rejection, the examiner’s rejection has not been overcome.
With respect to independent claim 28, appellants again argue
that the examiner has failed to make a proper rejection of the
claim. Appellants also argue that the cited references fail to
teach a software architecture as recited in claim 28. Finally,
appellants argue that the examiner has unreasonably interpreted
elements of the claim [brief, pages 9-11]. The examiner responds
that Quixtar is running its e-Commerce site on Intel
architecture-based servers. The examiner notes that such servers
are inherently computer based and employ software [answer, page
16].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 28-31 for
the reasons argued by the examiner in the answer. We agree with
the examiner that the compensation system taught in Quixtar
performs the steps recited for the first commissions system of
claim 28. With respect to appellants’ general argument that the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007