Appeal 2006-2085
Application 09/810,629
1 Claim 1 is representative of the claims under appeal and reads as
2 follows:
3 1 A method for characterizing a service provider, comprising the
4 acts of:
5 a) gathering information on characteristics of a service
6 provider;
7
8 b) analyzing the information to provide an outcome;
9
10 c) generating a report responsive to the outcome; and
11
12 d) providing the report to at least two clients of the service
13 provider, wherein the acts of analyzing, generating, and providing are
14 performed by a management service.
15
16 The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
17 (2004).
18 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
19 appeal is:
20 Gershman US 6,199,099 B1 Mar. 6, 2001
21 Brockman US 2002/0123919 A1 Sep. 5, 2002
22 (effectively filed Mar. 2, 2001)
23
24 Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter would not have
25 been obvious because Gershman in view of Brockman does not teach each
26 and every feature of claims 1, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, and 251 because the applied
27 prior art does not teach or suggest “‘generating a report responsive to the
28 outcome; and . . . providing the report to at least two clients of the service
1 We note that these claims represent all of the independent claims before us
for decision on appeal.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013