Appeal 2007-1235
Application 09/748,125
Appellants have not shown that the claimed method yields an unexpected
result.
E. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims over the prior art.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ricker and Puckett, and further in view of Yang.
Claims 21 and 22 read as follows:
21. The process as claimed in claim 1, further comprising the step of
using the internal document identifier to identify translation error data
corresponding to the inbound document from the trading partner and
provide information to the trading partner based on the identified
translation error data.
22. The computer program product as claimed in claim 20,
configured for further performing the step of using the internal
document identifier to identify translation error data corresponding to
the inbound document from the trading partner and provide
information to the trading partner based on the identified translation
error data.
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
21
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013