Appeal No. 2006-2039 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/520,763
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981).
The appellants' invention is a computer implemented method for providing
financial services to a client which are deployed according to a selectable set of criteria.
As depicted in Figure 1 the method includes assigning services to each of three service
provider groups (specification at page 5). The assignment of services to the groups is
done by first determining whether the service is of high value to the customer and
whether the services are frequently needed by the client. Those services that are of
high value and frequently needed are assigned to a core service group. The services
that are of high value but are not used frequently and the services that are used
frequently but not of high value are assigned to an affiliated group. Services that are
not of high value and not used frequently are assigned to a non-affiliated group
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007