Appeal No. 2006-1429
Application No. 10/437,995
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6.” Further, appellants incorporate the arguments
directed the other rejected claims toward claim 21.
As discussed supra, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellants have not pointed to any specific claim limitation alleged as
not taught by the reference, nor have appellants identified the corresponding structure in
appellants’ specification that is claimed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6,1 which is
not taught or suggested by the art of record. Thus, appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us of an error in the examiner’s decision to reject claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. §
103. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
Rejection of claims 5 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue, on page 7 of the brief, that the examiner has presented no
evidence to support the findings concerning service level agreements being well known
in the art.
In response the examiner states on pages 14 and 15 of the answer:
[H]aving business rules to govern service level configurations to a
business entity for presenting their information is known to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. For example, [a] web
hosting service provider may have charges based on amount of data
transferred to user on behalf of business, limitation on data storage used
by a business on web server, location of business link on web page of the
service provider, Quality of Service, Statement of Work, Service Contract
etc.,
We disagree with the examiner’s rationale. Initially we note the examiner has
not presented objective evidence that at the time of the invention it was known that a
hosting service provider may have charges based on amount of data transferred to user on
behalf of business. Further, had the examiner presented such evidence, the examiner has
1 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(v) states: For each independent claim involved in the appeal and
for each dependent claim argued separately under the provisions of paragraph (c)(1)(vii)
of this section, every means plus function and step plus function as permitted by 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, must be identified and the structure, material, or acts
described in the specification as corresponding to each claimed function must be set forth
with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any,
by reference characters.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007