Appeal No. 2006-3062
Application No. 09/861,153
Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458, n. 2, 150 USPQ 441, 444, n. 2 (CCPA 1966). In
summary, the obviousness rejection of claim 1 is sustained because all of the
limitations of claim 1 read directly on the teachings of Yu. The teachings of
Harman are merely cumulative to the teachings of Yu. The obviousness rejection
of claims 2, 9 through 13, 20 through 25, 28, 29 and 36 through 38 is likewise
sustained because Appellant has not presented any patentability arguments for
these claims apart from the arguments presented for claim 1.
The obviousness rejections of claims 3 through 8, 14 through 19, 26, 27 and
30 through 35 are sustained because Appellant has not presented any patentability
arguments for these claims.
Turning lastly to the obviousness rejection of claims 26 and 27, the
Examiner contends that Yu describes all of the system structure except for a web
server, an applications server and a firewall (Answer 18-19). The Appellant
contends that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the teachings of Yu with the web server, applications server and firewall
teachings of Ramanathan because “Ramanathan is not applicable to the same field
of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely, international shipping addresses
formatting software executing on a host system” (Br. 11). We agree with the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013