Appeal 2007-1235
Application 09/748,125
subject matter of steps (c) and (d) of claim 1 obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention.
B. Findings of Fact
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. The Examiner found that:
As per independent claim 1, Ricker discloses a computer
implemented process for tracking inbound documents received from
trading patterns [sic, partners] in a business-to-business electronic
commerce system, the process comprising:
·(a) Receiving an inbound document from a trading partner at a
translator (Figure 9)
·(b) The translator checking compliance of the document for
translation from a source format to a desired target format (Figure 9)
·(c) Attempting translation of the document and detecting errors
in the translation (page 8: Here, the translation is performed using an
X12 dictionary. The translation is then checked to ensure that the data
is complete and accurate).
Answer 3-4. Accordingly, the Examiner found that Ricker shows steps (a),
(b), and that part of step (c) which calls for “attempting translation of the
document.” Appellants did not traverse these findings by the Examiner.
Appeal Br. 6-7. Thus Ricker shows a computer implemented 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; and
(c) attempting translation of the document.
2. Appellants argued that “[t]he final office action [wrongly] states that
Ricker discloses [the] feature [of capturing error data detected in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013