Appeal No. 2006-1128
Application No. 10/215,877
the process being performed. Certainly, Caulfield’s automated processes may be
characterized as investigators in that they carry out the process of investigation.
Accordingly, the appellants’ argument there would be no motivation to combine a highly
automated Caulfield process with Lynn’s workflow process as there would be no need
for an investigator is unpersuasive.
None of the appellants’ arguments are found persuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 7-12 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable as obvious over Caulfield in view of Lynn.
Claims 13-18
We note that the appellants argue claims 13-18 as a group. Accordingly, we select
claim 13 as representative of the group.
We note that claim 13 essentially combines some limitations from each of claims 1 and
7, and we have noted above how Caulfield in view of Lynn meets those claims, aside
from the receiving and storing a disputed payment transaction, which Caulfield shows p.
2 col. 1-5.
The appellants argue that the references fail to show a queue of a plurality of cases
for resolution by a user. [See Brief at p. 15]. Lynn shows prefetching a second case in
a queue for a user, thus describing at least two cases in a queue.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007