Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090
well-known in the art and concludes that it would have been obvious to
incorporate this well-known knowledge into the combination of Aycock and
Gervais "to enhance the ability of a business enterprise[] to organize access
and sharing of information and application and to facilit[ate] the
management of supplier qualification" (Final Rejection 5).
Appellants note the Examiner's reasoning but do not respond to it
(Br. 15-16). Appellants note that claims recite that the proposed process
changes are provided to a shared data repository and are accessible to
collaborative sources via said web-based user interface, and that the
proposed process change is accessed, analyzed, and a determination is made
whether to accept the proposed process change. It is argued (Br. 16): "These
limitations clearly reflect the collaborative process that is featured in the
claims and which is not taught by Aycock or Gervais. The web based user
interface, shared data repository, and accessibility to affected collaborative
sources via web based user interface, all firmly support the Appellants[']
contentions that the limitations clearly distinguish these claims from Aycock
and Gervais."
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in concluding that the combination of Aycock and Gervais discloses or
suggests the limitations of claims 50 and 51.
Appellants do not address the substance of the Examiner's rejection.
Appellants do not traverse the Examiner's finding of Official Notice and do
not say why it would not have been obvious for the data in Aycock to be
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013