Appeal 2007-0681
Application 09/805,978
the data saved includes affiliation information. Thus, neither Freedman nor
Hartman teaches or suggests 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.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 7, 11 through 14, 16, 17, and 19 through 33.
For claims 8 through 10, the Examiner adds Greulich to the primary
combination. Appellant contends (Br. 38-39) that Greulich does not remedy
the shortcomings of Freedman and Hartman. Greulich states (col. 5, ll. 60-
65) that the computer determines which printing facility to use based upon
scheduling, geographic location, and capabilities of the facility. We find no
suggestion in Greulich to use a printing facility that has an affiliation with
the orderer. Thus, Greulich fails to cure the deficiency of the primary
combination, and we find no evidence in the record before us that would
have suggested the affiliation limitation that is lacking from above-noted
references. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 8 through 10.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013