Appeal 2007-1235
Application 09/748,125
addressed above and for which claim 1 was designated as representative.
Appeal Br. 6-7. We therefore do not separately address the rejections of
claims 3-5 and 8-10 but, rather, consider them to stand or fall with the
disposition of the rejection of claim 1. Since we have found that Appellants
have failed to show that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, we likewise
find that Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 3-5 and 8-10.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ricker and further in view of Puckett.
Claims 11 and 12 read as follows:
11. A process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step (d) comprises
extracting data from both a document's enveloping information and
from within the document.
12. A process as claimed in claim 1, wherein error data is captured
by writing values to variables in memory, and subsequently saving
said values to the tracking database referenced to the internal
document identifiers.
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
claims 11 and 12 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013