Appeal No. 2007-0793
Application No. 09/875,487
1 REFERENCES
2
3 The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
4
5 Thomas US 2002/0002482 A1 Jan. 03, 2002
6 (filed Jul. 01, 1997)
7 Sandus US 2002/0072993 A1 Jun. 13, 2002
8 (effectively filed Nov. 3, 2000)
9
10
11 REJECTION AT ISSUE
12 Claims 15 through 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
13 being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Sandus. The Examiner’s
14 rejection is set forth on pages 2 through 4 of the Final Office action mailed
15 May 31, 2005. Throughout the opinion we make reference to the Brief (filed
16 December 29, 2005), and the Answer (mailed March 7, 2006) for the
17 respective details thereof.
18 ISSUES
19 Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
20 claims 15, 22 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) is in error. Appellants
21 assert, on page 4 of the Brief, that Thomas is directed to a survey system and
22 Sandus is directed to an on line sales and marketing system. Appellants
23 argue, on pages 4 and 5 of the Brief, that one skilled in the art would not be
24 motivated to combine the references as asserted by the Examiner to include
25 an online survey and a shopping cart to order samples or products.
26 The Examiner contends that the rejection is proper and states on page
27 6 of the Answer:
28 [T]he secondary reference Sandus identifies in the background
29 of the invention (Pg. 1 para. 6) that ecommerce transactions in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013