Appeal 2007-1235
Application 09/748,125
log database is uniquely dependent on the presence of a storage system. One
of ordinary skill in the art reading Puckett would understand Puckett to be
describing a particular application for identifying the errors captured in the
log database and that such a step would be useful to identify errors wherever
errors are detected and captured in log databases. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by the argument that Puckett is not relevant to the subject matter
claimed in step (d).
We have addressed all of Appellants’ arguments and find them
unpersuasive as to find fault with the Examiner’s characterization of the
scope and content of Ricker and Puckett.
Based on an analysis of the scope and content of Ricker and Puckett,
the facts support the conclusion that 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, which translation involves
detecting errors, and that Puckett shows (c) capturing error data to a tracking
database; and (d) extracting data from a received document and using it to
provide a document identifier, and saving the document identifier to a
database as an index for the error data, the document identifier correlated to
the received document. Accordingly, all of the steps and their limitations are
disclosed in the prior art. We find each step claimed performs as one of
ordinary skill in the art would expect it to perform from reading the cited
prior art. Each performs a known function and that function is spelled out in
the prior art. The steps claimed do no more than what one would expect if
the steps described in Ricker and Puckett were to be combined. “The
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013