Appeal No. 2006-1187
Application No. 10/056,832
With regard to this rejection appellant presents the same arguments as
discussed above with respect to the examiner’s rejection based upon official
notice. The examiner provides the same arguments in response. The examiner
has not shown nor do we find that Hartman teaches a computer which receives
information relating to a visible feature of the product and then transfers a replica
order to another computer which enables the transference of the replica to the
user as is claimed in independent claim 33. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 33 through 39 and 45.
Rejection of claims 3, 8, 11, 13 16 through 20, 22 through 32 and 49 through
52 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Turkel.
Claims 3, 8, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31 and 32.
On page 19 of the brief, appellant argues that claims 3, 8, 19, 23, 24, 27,
28, 31 and 32 are all dependent upon claim 1 and should be allowable for the
reasons argued with respect to claim 1. As stated supra, we are not persuaded
by appellant’s arguments directed to claim 1 and sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Accordingly, we also sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 3, 8, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Claims 11, 13, 16 through 18, 20, 22, 25, 29 and 30.
We note that claims 11, 13, 16 through 18, 20, 22, 25, 29 and 30 are all
ultimately dependent upon claim 7, as stated supra we do not find that Turkel
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007