Appeal 2007-0681
Application 09/805,978
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the obviousness
rejections of claims 1 through 14, 16, 17, and 19 through 33.
OPINION
The main issue presented by Appellant (Br. 20-31) is whether
Freedman and Hartman disclose the center server determining, on the basis
of stored data, which of the second client computers is affiliated with the
orderer and transmitting the order to that second client computer. The
Examiner (Answer 9-10) asserts that Hartman discloses storing data for
future orders, and, therefore, suggests storing an affiliation between the
orderer and second client computers for the center server to use in selecting
a second client computer. We agree with Appellant that no affiliation is
disclosed on the record before us.
Freedman discloses (col. 10, ll. 19-27) that either the orderer selects
the printing facility (or second client computer) or the orderer may permit
the system (or center server) to select the printing facility. We find no other
disclosure in Freedman as to how a printing facility is chosen, nor any
teaching of saving order information for future orders. Hartman discloses
(col. 3, ll. 40-42) that "purchaser-specific order information may have been
collected from a previous order placed by the purchaser." The information
is saved for single-action ordering capabilities, so that the purchaser need
not send sensitive information via the Internet multiple times. See col. 3, l.
66-col. 4, l. 3, and col. 6, ll. 48-52. We find no teaching or suggestion that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013