Appeal 2007-2070
Application 10/123,457
1 to couple at least one physical memory to the at least one
2 memory interface,
3 which at least one physical memory contains fresh
4 product-source-to-consumer relationship-building
5 displayable information suitable to display on the
6 dynamic display.
7 The Examiner found that that Treyz anticipated claim 1 (Answer 4-5). The
8 Examiner did not recite any citations to Treyz to support this finding.
9 The Appellants contend that “[t]here is nothing in Treyz … to suggest that his
10 handheld computing device be physically accessed by a representative of the
11 product source itself for any reason whatsoever.” (Br. 6: First para.).
12 The Examiner responded that “it is noted that the features upon which
13 applicant relies (i.e., that the ‘handheld computing device be physically accessed
14 by a representative of the product source’) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).”
15 (Answer 12: Last para.).
16 Thus, the issue before us is whether claim 1 recites that the handheld
17 computing device be physically accessed by a representative of the product source
18 itself, and if so whether Treyz describes it.
19 We find that step [2] of claim 1, in its first line, explicitly requires that it be
20 performed via a representative of the product source. We also find that Treyz
21 contains no explicit description of a representative of the product source
22 performing step [2] (FF 07).
23 The Appellants have sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner erred
24 in rejecting claims 1-20, 22-42, 45-48, and 51-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
25 anticipated by Treyz.
26
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013