Appeal 2006-3117
Application 09/732,498
transaction and navigation data. (Final Rejection 12.) As discussed in the
preceding paragraph, we find no sufficient rationale in the record before that
would have led the ordinarily skilled artisan to combine such teaching of
Leermakers with Brown’s system to yield the separate servers as required by
claim 14. Therefore, the suggested combination is improper. Consequently,
we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14 through 17 as being
unpatentable over the cited combination. We reverse this rejection.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, the Examiner has failed to establish that
Brown, Travaille, Leermakers and/or Gessel, Diwan and Hendricks are
properly combined to render claims 1 through 17 unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013