Appeal 2007-1235
Application 09/748,125
claims 21 and 22 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention.
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.
2. The Examiner found that
As per dependent claim 21, Ricker and Puckett disclose the
limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is
incorporated herein. Ricker and Puckett fail to specifically disclose
the step of identifying error data corresponding to the inbound
document from the trading partner and provide information to the
trading partner based on the identified error data. However, Yang
discloses identifying error data corresponding to the inbound
document from the trading partner and provides information to the
trading partner based on the identified error data (column 9, table:
Here, if a translation fails, an error message is generated informing a
user that the translation does not work).
…
As per dependent claim 22, the applicant discloses the
limitations similar to those in claim 21. Claim 22 is similarly rejected
under Ricker, Puckett, and Yang.
Answer 13-14.
3. Appellants traversed the Examiner’s finding, arguing that
Claims 21 and 22 recite that translation error data of an inbound
document of a trading partner is used to provide information to the
trading partner based on the identified translation error data. The final
office action relies on Yang to disclose this feature and cites to col. 9
of Yang and a table which is presumably the code fragment disclosed
in col. 9 of Yang. However, Yang is completely irrelevant to the
22
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013