Appeal No. 2006-1128
Application No. 10/215,877
PRIOR ART & REJECTIONS
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Bissonette et al. (Bissonette) 6,343,279 Jan. 29, 2002
Lynn et al. (Lynn) 6,606,710 Aug. 12, 2003
(filed October 5, 1998)
Caulfield et al. (Caulfield) WO 02/05123 (PCT) Jan. 3, 2002
In addition, we place the following prior art reference into the record.
J. Leon Zhao and Edward A. Stohr, Temporal Workflow Management in a Claim
Handling System, Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Work Activities
Coordination and Collaboration, International Conference on Work Activities
Coordination and Collaboration, ISSN: 0163-5948, pp. 187-195, Feb., 1999 (Zhao).
The examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1, 7, 13, 19 and 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and that rejection is accordingly moot. [Answer p. 2].
Claims 1-6 and 24-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
as obvious over Bissonette in view of Lynn.
Claims 7-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as
obvious over Caulfield in view of Lynn.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (mailed October 7, 2005) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
appellants’ brief (filed July 25, 2005) and reply brief (filed November 18, 2005) for the
arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007