Appeal 2007-1235
Application 09/748,125
• Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ricker and Puckett, and further in view of Yang (US 6,530,039).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants, in the Appeal Brief2, argue the claims in accordance with
the following groups:
• claims 1-10 and 13-20 (Appeal Br. 6-7);
• claims 11 and 12 (Appeal Br. 7); and,
• claims 21 and 22 (Appeal Br. 7-8).
Claims 1-2, 6-7, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ricker and further in view of Puckett.
Because Appellants argue claims 1-10 and 13-20 as a group, pursuant
to the rules, the Board selects representative claim 1 to decide the appeal
with respect to this rejection, and claims 2, 6-7, and 13-20 will stand or fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A computer implemented process for tracking inbound
documents received from trading partners in a business-to-business
electronic commerce system, the process comprising the steps of:
(a) receiving an inbound document from a trading partner at a
translator;
(b) the translator checking compliance of the document for
translation from a source format to a desired target format;
(c) attempting translation of the document, and capturing error
data representing errors detected in the translation to a tracking
database; and
2 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed Jun. 26, 2006), the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Aug.
23, 2006), and to the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct. 19, 2006).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013