Appeal No. 2006-0329
Application 09/839,037
because it is functional language at a point of novelty, yet the
appellants have not disclosed any structure for obtaining the
desired result (answer, page 7). The appellants recite a structure,
i.e., a processor that is in operable communication with a
storefront database and is configured to selectively communicate
with a customer client and a supplier client via a computer network.
Hence, to establish a prima facie case of obviousness the examiner
must explain how the applied prior art would have fairly suggested
that processor to one of ordinary skill in the art, and the examiner
has not done so.
The examiner states that “Cusack et al. is relied on to
establish the obvious arrangement of a customer client (buyer 18)
and supplier client (provider 16) communicating through a computer
network WIM12” (answer, page 8), and argues that“[t]he
buyer/customer uses the network to access the inventory database 14
and to purchase an item and, once done, the network automatically
updates the inventory database to account for the removed/sold item
(col. 11, line 12 et seq.).” See id. The appellants’ independent
claim requires a data processing system that is “adapted to manage
transfer of parts stored in a secure area by a supplier to a
customer via a computer network”, and includes a processor having
program instructions including “receiving secure area part reception
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007