Appeal 2007-1403
Application 10/226,966
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82
USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78
USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The Examiner’s extensive reasoning
in the Answer is consistent with and follows this analytical framework.
We begin our remarks with the Examiner’s observation at the bottom
of page 9 of the Answer that the discussion beginning at the bottom of
Specification page 1 teaches that it was known in the art to utilize one
centralized location called a service bureau where various services may be
selected. It is stated in the first full paragraph at Specification page 2 that
the user has the ability to view (indicating a display of some kind) and select
services provided by the service bureau. Thus, as admitted in Appellants’
Specification it is known in the art to use a service bureau.
We therefore do not agree with Appellants’ views that in the context
of the rejection of record, first that the service bureau claimed requires the
depiction of all services available and the ability of the user to select among
all of the services available and that this is not taught in Fiszman as noted at
page 16 of the principal Brief. We do not agree with the urging that
Fiszman does not teach or suggest a service bureau. Notwithstanding the
fact that it is known in the art to use such a service bureau, the teachings of
Fiszman as outlined by the Examiner do indicate at least the user’s ability to
create a corresponding graphical depiction and process definition manually
that are explained in words other than “a service bureau” per se. The use of
such manual capability of Fiszman is not excluded by representative
independent claim 1 on appeal. Even the graphical depiction of Figure 9 of
Fiszman, reproduced on page 14 of the Brief, illustrates a common or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013