Appeal 2007-1235
Application 09/748,125
B. Findings of Fact
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. We incorporate herein the facts under the Findings of Fact section for
the rejection of claims 1-2, 6, 7, and 13-20 above and add the following
facts.
2. Claim 11 further limits the data extracting step of step (d) of claim 1
to include “extracting data from both a document's enveloping information
and from within the document.”
3. The Examiner found
As per dependent claim 11, Ricker and Puckett disclose the
limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is
incorporated herein. Puckett further discloses that step d) comprises
extracting data from both a document's enveloping information and
from within the document (col. 3, lines 5-7, "These events can be
errors in the storage system or simply routine observations about the
storage system").
Answer 6.
4. Appellants did not traverse the Examiner’s finding but rather question
its relevance to the claimed subject matter, arguing that:
[t]he office action states with respect to the features of claim 11, that
"these errors can be errors about the storage system or simply routine
observations about the storage system." However, equating the errors
related to the "storage system" to the claimed document information is
incorrect since one skilled in the art of either computing systems or e-
commerce systems would not equate a trading partner document to a
storage system disclosed by Puckett.
Appeal Br. 7.
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013