Appeal No. 2006-1429
Application No. 10/437,995
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellants and the examiner, and for the
reasons stated infra we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6 through 13 and 17
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4,
14, 15 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, nor will we sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claims 5 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of claims 1, 6 through 10, 12, 13 and 17 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellants argue, on pages 4 and 5 of the brief, that Eddie Bauer does not
disclose “functionality for ‘associating’ surface material samples with a ‘business entity,’
or functionality for labeling the surface material samples with ‘information specified by
the business entity.’” Further, appellants assert that because Eddie Bauer discloses
hyperlinks for categories of products but that these hyperlinks identify products not
business entities. Thus, on page 6 of the brief, appellants conclude that Eddie Bauer
“fails to teach or suggest receiving a ‘data request’ including an ‘identifier of the
business entity,’ Eddie Bauer accordingly fails to teach or suggest ‘responding’ to the
data request with at least one of the surface material samples and associated label
information specified by the business entity, as claim 1 recites.”
In response the examiner states, on page 10 of the answer, that the examiner
considers the business entity to be Eddie Bauer, and that the surface material samples are
the web pages and are labeled with information provided by Eddie Bauer. Thus, the
examiner considers Eddie Bauer’s web pages to contain surface material samples which
are labeled by the business entity. The examiner also identifies that the claim is not
limited to a catalog service for more then one business entity.
We concur with the examiner. Claim 1 includes the limitations of “ associating
one or more surface material samples with a business entity wherein at least one of the
surface material samples is labeled with information specified by the business entity” and
“receiving a data request for at least one of the surface material samples wherein the data
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007