Appeal 2007-1297
Application 10/082,235
rejection of independent claims 1 and 10, as well as dependent claims 2, 4-9,
and 12-22 not separately argued by Appellant, is sustained.
Turning to consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
rejection of independent claim 23 based on Curtis, we sustain this rejection
as well as that of dependent claims 24-26 not separately argued by
Appellant. Independent claim 23 differs from previously discussed
independent claims 1 and 10 by requiring that a user use a menu on the
displayed incident ticket to edit the tracking rules.
We agree with Appellant (Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 5-6) that the portions
of Curtis cited by the Examiner in support of the rejection of claim 23 are
directed to general discussions of computer work station user interfaces that
display the fraud case information, i.e., the incident ticket, but have no
explicit disclosure of the use of a menu, associated with the displayed fraud
case information, by a user to edit tracking rules. Nevertheless, while the
absence of an explicit disclosure in Curtis of a menu for tracking rule editing
purposes would indicate that the Examiner’s rejection would have been
more properly based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we will sustain
this rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In our view, the ordinarily skilled
artisan would have recognized from Curtis’ disclosure of user work station
editing of tracking rules that such editing procedure would have included a
menu feature for user entry of rule creations and modifications.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s rejections of all the
claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims
1, 2, 4-10, and 12-26 is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013