Ex Parte Rozek et al - Page 2

               Appeal 2007-1235                                                                             
               Application 09/748,125                                                                       

                      The invention is directed to a computer-implemented process (claims                   
               1 and 18), electronic commerce system (claim 19), and computer program                       
               product (claim 20) for translating documents received from trading partners                  
               in one format into another compliance-validated format to be sent to other                   
               trading partners.  Specification, p. 5, ll. 9-24.  The translation process                   
               includes capturing translation errors in a tracking database.  Specification, p.             
               5, ll. 24-25.  The translation process also includes extracting data from the                
               document being translated for use as an identifier in the tracking database.                 
               The identifier is saved in the database as an index for the error data.                      
               Specification, p. 5, ll. 25-28.                                                              
                      The claims are rejected as follows:                                                   
               • Claims 1-2, 6-7, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being                   
                 unpatentable over Ricker ("XML and EDI- Peaceful Co-Existence," 3                          
                 March 2000, available from www.archive.org) and further in view of                         
                 Puckett (US 5,572,670).                                                                    
               • Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over                     
                 Ricker and Puckett, and further in view of Dysart (US 6,708,166), and                      
                 further in view of Casper (US 5,526,484).                                                  
               • Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over                     
                 Ricker, Puckett, Dysart, and Casper, and further in view of Dowling (US                    
                 6,157,988).                                                                                
               • Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over                    
                 Ricker and Puckett, and further in view of Casper.                                         
               • Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over                     
                 Ricker and Puckett, and further in view of Rusterholz et al. (US 4,945,479).               
               • Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over                     
                 Ricker and Puckett, and further in view of Loebig (US 5,406,563).                          
               • Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over                    
                 Ricker, Puckett, Loebig, and further in view of Casper.                                    


                                                     2                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013