Appeal No. 2006-1229
Application No. 09/800,690
Finally, the Appellants argue that Pritchard fails to show communication between a
host system and user system, because Pritchard requires a notification involving the
manufacturer, dealer and customer. [See Brief at p. 13]. The claim elements in claim 1
recite
ƒ wherein said host system includes instructions for executing a
method, comprising: …
ƒ notifying said user system that said back order request has
been satisfied
The breadth of this claim scope is certainly sufficient to encompass a notification
from manufacturer to customer via dealer. Also, Ahluwalia states that the consumer
may select a means of automated reporting of the vehicle delivery status. [See col. 10
lines 28-29].
In light of the above, the Appellants’ arguments fail to persuade us of any error on
the part of the examiner. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 3 to 21 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over
Alnwick in view of Ahluwalia, Furphy and Pritchard.
CONCLUSION
To summarize the rejection of claims 1 and 3-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable as obvious over Alnwick in view of Ahluwalia, Furphy and Pritchard, is
sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007