Appeal 2007-1235
Application 09/748,125
(d) extracting data from the received inbound document from
the trading partner and using it to provide an internal document
identifier, and saving the internal document identifier to the tracking
database as an index for the error data, said internal document
identifier correlated to the received inbound document from the
trading partner.
A. Issue
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in holding the combination of Ricker’s computer-implemented e-business
process facilitating exchange of information between traders using different
formats through the translation of inbound documents from one format to
another with Puckett’s recording of errors in an error log database as part of
an error data translation system would have rendered the subject matter of
claim 1 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention.
Appellants contend that Ricker and Puckett do not teach or disclose:
(1) “on attempting translation of the document, error data detected in
the translation are captured to a tracking database” (Appeal Br. 6) [i.e., step
(c) of claim 1], and
(2) “an internal document identifier is saved to the tracking database
that servers [sic, serves] as an index for the translation error data” (Appeal
Br. 6) [i.e., step (d) of claim 1]. Emphasis original.
The Examiner contends that Ricker and Puckett would have rendered
the subject matter of these steps obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Answer 3-4.
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in holding the combination of Ricker and Puckett would have rendered the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013