Appeal 2007-1235
Application 09/748,125
led the Examiner to conclude that Puckett discloses extracting data from
both a document's enveloping information and from within the document.
Appellants argue instead that
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.
FF 4. We disagree.
One of ordinary skill in the art reading Puckett would not conclude
that the process therein for extracting data is limited in application to the
system Puckett describes. The disclosure in col. 3, lines 5-7 of Puckett,
which the Examiner relies upon, describes capturing errors in an error log
database. While the errors being captured are related to events occurring in
the storage system, the mechanism by which Puckett captures errors (i.e.,
using an error log database represented by headers or descriptors) does not
depend on the types of errors to be captured. Furthermore, the issue is not
whether Puckett anticipates the subject matter of claim 11 but whether the
combination of Ricker and Puckett would have led one of ordinary skill in
the art to the subject matter of claim 11 such that it would have been obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2002). Finally, Puckett’s disclosure is clearly
relevant to the subject matter claimed because Puckett captures errors in a
tracking database, a step which the claimed method also performs.
As to the Examiner’s finding with respect to the subject matter of
claim 12 (FF 6), Appellants did not traverse the substance of the finding that
led the Examiner to conclude that Puckett discloses a process wherein error
data is captured by writing values to variables in memory, and subsequently
19
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013