Appeal 2006-2085
Application 09/810,629
1 divisions of a service provider, we find that the different divisions, such as
2 the described Northeast and Midwest entities may each be considered to be
3 clients of the service provider.
4 In addition, because both references obtain data regarding a service
5 provider and analyze the data to generate reports, we find that an artisan
6 would have been motivated to combine the teachings and suggestions of
7 Gershman and Brockman to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1. From the
8 lack of any persuasive arguments by Appellants regarding the teachings and
9 suggestions of Brockman, we are not convinced of any error on the part of
10 the Examiner in rejection claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
11 unpatentable over Gershman in view of Brockman. From all of the above,
12 we hold that the combined teachings of Gershman and Brockman would
13 have suggested the limitations of claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 is
14 sustained, along with claims 2-6 which have not been separately argued and
15 fall with claim 1.
16 Turning to claims 7 and 19, these claims refer to performance of a
17 provider instead of characteristics of a provider. From the description in
18 facts 3 and 4 of obtaining product availability information, and the
19 description in fact 6 of obtaining product ratings for a user, we hold that
20 Gershman suggests gathering, analyzing, and generating reports relating to
21 performance of the service provider. Accordingly, we will sustain the
22 rejection of claims 7 and 19, along with claims 8-10 and 20-22 which fall
23 with claims 7 and 19.
24 Turning to claims 11 and 23, these claims refer to security instead of
25 characteristics or performance. From the description in Gershman that the
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013