Appeal 2007-1992
Application 09/318,447
The claims are rejected as follows:
• Claims 108-123, 126-137, 151-156, 159-163, and 176-183 are rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of Hartman (US Patent 5,960,411)
in view of Hafner (US Patent 5,893,076).
• Claims 108-117, 151-156, and 176-183 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Joseph (US Patent 5,819,034) in view
of Teper (US Patent 5,815,665) and further in view of Official Notice.
• Claims 118-123, 126-137, and 159-163 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Joseph in view of Teper in view of
Official Notice and further in view of Hafner (US Patent 5,893,076).
We REVERSE and REMAND. 2
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
A. Issue
The issue is whether the Examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness-type double patenting of the claims over the claims of
Hartman in view of Hafner.
B. Findings of Fact
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. The Examiner found
… The claims of Patent "411" teach placing single action orders
over an electronic network and the other claimed features of the
2 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed Aug. 17, 2006), the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Oct.
11, 2006), and to the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Dec. 11, 2006).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013