Appeal No. 2006-1429
Application No. 10/437,995
not shown how this evidence along with the Eddie Bauer reference teaches that the
business rules govern the service level configurations for presenting custom-labeled
surface materials, as claimed in claims 5 and 16. Rather, it would seem that such
evidence would just show that it was known to charge Eddie Bauer based on the amount
of data stored on the server. Accordingly we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 5 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
In summary, 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 claim 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. The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-
part.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007