Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090
Additionally, Aycock is devoid of teaching or suggesting that
said technology survey is associated with an engineering organization
related to a technology being surveyed.
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in finding that Aycock discloses or suggests "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."
Appellants' Specification describes a "technical survey" as "a series of
technical questions that begin the technology qualification process"
('372 publication ¶ 21). The Specification does not describe what kind of
technical questions are in the technical survey. Aycock discloses that the
suppliers perform a self-evaluation/verification in which they respond to
questions (col. 12, ll. 37-56) and we see no reason why this cannot be termed
a "technical survey" absent a specific definition by Appellants. The supplier
qualification is based on hardware and software standards (col. 5, ll. 19-36),
such as hardware and software requirements for a voice mail system (col. 5,
ll. 44-65), and examples are given of an automobile manufacturer, a high-
technology systems integrator, and a telecommunications company (col. 1,
ll. 16-31), so one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find the buyer
sending out the RFP/RFQ in Aycock to be an engineering organization; i.e.,
the buyer is looking to evaluate suppliers for building a product which
requires engineering. We conclude that the Examiner has established a
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013