Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090
Conclusion
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness as to claim 44, which has not been rebutted. The rejection of
claims 44, 48, 49, 55, 59, 60, 66, 70, and 71 is affirmed.
Group 2 - claims 77-79
Claim 77 corresponds to the combination of independent claim 44 and
dependent claims 48 and 49. Claim 78 corresponds to the combination of
independent claim 55 and dependent claims 59 and 60. Claim 79
corresponds to the combination of independent claim 66 and dependent
claims 70 and 71. Method claim 77 is selected as representative of this
group. The arguments with respect to limitations of claims 77-79 common
to claims 44, 55, and 66 are addressed in the discussion of Group 1.
As to the additional limitations of "placing a technology survey on the
Web, said technology survey accessible to at least one supplier, said
technology survey associated with an engineering organization related to a
technology being surveyed" in claim 77, the Examiner refers to Figure 2 and
column 9, lines 3-35 of Aycock (Final Rejection 3-4).
Appellants argue (Br. 13):
If the Examiner is somehow suggesting that the standards recited in
Aycock are synonymous with the technology surveys recited in
Appellants['] claims, this interpretation is in error. The standards
disclosed in Aycock are not technology surveys, the latter of which
relates to questions that solicit structured responses for a given
technology.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013