Appeal No. 2006-3062
Application No. 09/861,153
Claims 3, 14 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yu in view of Harman and Ulvr.
Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yu in view of Ramanathan.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the respective positions of
the Appellant and the Examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain
the obviousness rejections of claims 1 through 38.
Appellant contends inter alia “Yu does not teach or suggest ‘retrieving a
corresponding address format by looking up a portion of said parsed address in an
index table’” (Br. 9). Appellant contends (Br. 6-9) that the teachings of Yu are
limited to address validation.
We disagree with all of Appellant’s arguments. Yu describes an
international address validation system and method that also checks the format of
the address based on the country (paragraphs 0011 through 0013, 0173, claim 9).
Yu receives a parsed address from a user system (paragraphs 0063, 0117 through
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013