Ex Parte Pomerance - Page 3



                  Appeal No. 2006-1523                                                                                      
                  Application No. 09/793,687                                                                                

                                                    Rejections at Issue                                                     
                         Claims 1, through 6, 8, 9, 11 and 14 through 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                     
                  § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter.  The examiner’s rejection is set forth on              
                  pages 6 through 9 of the answer.  Claims 1 through 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14 through 19 and 21                    
                  through 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Burchetta                  
                  in view of Sloo.  The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 9 through 14 of the                      
                  answer.  Claims 4, 11 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being                            
                  unpatentable over Burchetta in view of Sloo, “Online Mediation Offered for Resolving                      
                  E-Commerce Disputes” and Eisen.  The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 14                        
                  through 16 of the answer.  Claims 20 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as                   
                  being unpatentable over Burchetta in view of “Online Mediation Offered for Resolving                      
                  E-Commerce Disputes” and Eisen.  The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 16                        
                  through 18 of the answer. We note the final rejection also contained several rejections                   
                  based upon 35 U.S.C. § 112, however the examiner withdrew these rejections on appeal,                     
                  see page 4 of the answer.  Throughout the opinion we make reference to the briefs, the                    
                  answer and the final Office action for the respective details thereof.                                    

                                                         Opinion                                                            
                         We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections                          
                  advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner                      
                  as support for the rejections.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration,                 
                  in reaching our decision, appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the                    
                  examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the              
                  examiner’s answer.                                                                                        
                         With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the                           
                  examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellant and the examiner, and for the                         
                  reasons stated infra we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5, 6, 8, 9,               
                  14                                                                                                        



                                                             3                                                              



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007