Appeal 2006-3117
Application 09/732,498
storing user navigation and transaction data in at least one interactive
data repositories ("lDRs").
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relies upon the
following prior art:
Brown US 5,857,190 Jan. 05, 1999
Gessel US 5,889,954 Mar. 30, 1999
Hendricks US 6,052,554 Apr. 18, 2000
Travaille US 6,067,107 May 23, 2000
Leermakers US 2003/0105845 A1 Jun. 05, 2003
(filed Oct. 29, 1999)
Diwan US 6,801,936 B1 Oct. 05, 2004
(filed Apr. 7, 2000)
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
A. Claims 1 through 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Brown, Travaille, Leermakers
and Gessel.
B. Claims 14 through 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Brown, Travaille, Leermakers and
Diwan.
C. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Brown, Travaille, Leermakers, Gessel, and
Hendricks.
First, Appellants contend that the combination of Brown, Travaille,
Leermakers and Gessel does not render claims 1 through 11 and 13
unpatentable. Particularly, Appellants contend that Leermakers1 and
1 At page 10 of the Amended Appeal Brief, Appellants argue that the
primary purpose of Leemakers relates to downloading softwares onto a PDA
or the like. Particularly, Leermakers relates to transmitting software
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013