Appeal 2007-1715 Page 7
Application 10/033,224
4. We find in agreement with the Examiner, and not disputed by Appellant,
that the difference between the claimed subject matter and Nicholls is the subject
matter of claim steps (c)-(e):
(c) transmitting a query from said routine to said database for a weight
associated with said corresponding article, said packing material, and said
container;
(d) returning said weight to said routine; and
(e) displaying the cost to ship the article, packing material and
container.
Specifically, Nicholls does not appear to show the application querying for a
weight from the database and displaying a cost to ship the
article/packing/container.
5. Godin discloses a database that includes a field corresponding to “a product
weight which is used as part of the shipping cost” (col. 3, l. 38). Godin further
discloses applications which retrieve data from the database (col. 5, ll. 41-45) and
display results on a webpage, one of which is freight cost (col. 7, ll. 8-9 and Fig.
12).
C. Principles of Law
1. A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence that
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant teachings of
the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013