Appeal No. 2003-1614 Page 12
Application No. 09/817,692
such as numbers of previous visitations, or visitations weighted by time proximity." Id.
at ll. 55-59. We find that the "number of previous" visitations relates to frequency of
selection rather than time of day. Unsure to what the "time proximity" refers, we will not
engage "speculations and assumptions," in re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ
292, 295 (CCPA 1962), in interpreting the reference. The absence of arranging URLs
into a list based at least in part upon a particular time during the day negates
anticipation. Therefore, we reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 7, 13, and 15.
"In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the
claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781,
783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, the examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Brown
cures the aforementioned deficiency of Barrett. Absent a teaching or suggestion of
arranging URLs into a list based at least in part upon a particular time during the day,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007