Appeal No. 2006-2184
Application No. 09/819,427
pages 10 and 11]. The examiner responds that both Dedrick and Sullivan
suggest using customized web pages to present electronic information [answer,
page 14].
In addition, appellants contend that Sullivan does not disclose (1)
receiving customer information from a customer, where the information includes
information as to products that the customer uses, nor (2) identifying customer
support information specifically relevant to those products as claimed [brief,
pages 12-14]. Appellants note that since Dedrick does not provide customer
support, but rather customized advertisements, the skilled artisan would
therefore not think to add features from Sullivan’s customer support system to
Dedrick’s system [brief, page 14]. According to appellants, the examiner’s
combination of references is a result of improper hindsight reconstruction of the
claimed invention [brief, pages 14 and 15]. The examiner responds that the
Sullivan reference itself provides ample motivation to combine the references,
namely Sullivan’s recognition that providing technical support is becoming
increasingly difficult as businesses move online [answer, pages 13 and 14].
Regarding independent claim 31, appellants add that neither Dedrick or
Sullivan disclose “customer support information modules” as claimed [brief, page
22]. The examiner responds that the limitations calling for “modules” does not
preclude the software used to implement the methods of Dedrick or Sullivan
[answer, page 15].
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007