Appeal 2007-0647
Application 10/421,366
Bigus for teaching a vehicle-based order entry and processing system that
uses XML in association with a customized display (See Answer 8-9).
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 11-13 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of August in view of Bigus because
Appellants have shown the Examiner’s proffered combination fails to teach
all the limitations subsumed in dependent claims 9 and 11-13 by virtue of
their (indirect) dependency upon independent claim 1.
Claim 22
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 22 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of August in view of Wilson.
Appellants argue that the combination of August and Wilson does not
overcome the deficiencies of August (App. Br. 10-11). Specifically,
Appellants contend that Wilson does not teach “communicating an order
selection menu from the merchant service terminal to the telematics control
unit over a wireless channel, the order selection menu comprising a text
description and an image associated with at least one item on the order
selection menu,” as recited in independent claim 20 (Id.). Appellants point
out that the Examiner has acknowledged in the Final Office Action (p. 4)
that August does not teach these limitations (Id.).
In response, the Examiner states that the limitations argued by
Appellants are not recited in the rejected claim (i.e., claim 22) (Answer 14).
After carefully considering the evidence before us, we note that the
limitations argued by Appellants are explicitly recited within independent
claim 20 (from which claim 22 depends). We note that “[a] claim in
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013