Appeal No. 2007-0395 Page 9
Application No. 09/789,678
1 accomplishes. Appellant indicates that according to the instantly claimed
2 method a local retailer agrees to service a customer on behalf of a supplier in
3 exchange for receiving a portion of the customer’s payment for the goods.
4 Walker, on the other hand, according to Appellant, describes a method
5 whereby a manufacturer makes a retailer whole for goods sold to a customer
6 at a lower manufacturer set price. However, the question before us is
7 whether it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
8 arrive at the claimed method given the prior art method, notwithstanding the
9 difference in objectives between the two. In that regard the Examiner has
10 made a limitation-by-limitation analysis showing where in the prior art each
11 claimed step is disclosed. (Answer, pp. 4-5). Accordingly, we find that the
12 Examiner has presented a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed
13 subject matter over the prior art disclosure.
14 We turn now to Appellant’s specific contentions.
15
16 Limitations in the Claims
17 Appellant contends that the examiner has not established a prima facie
18 case of obviousness over the prior art because the prior art fails to teach or
19 suggest limitations of the claims. FF 17.
20 Appellant argues that “[t]he subject invention links the supplier 18
21 and the local retailer 20 and determines which local retailer 20 has
22 jurisdiction in order to placate customer 14 that support and service will be
23 available if the need arises, even though the order is placed on-line” (Brief,
24 p. 13). Appellant also argues that “the subject invention links suppler [sic,
25 supplier] and the local retailer 20 based upon the location of the local retailer
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013