Appeal No. 2006-1625
Application No. 09/915,033
complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If
that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima
facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on
the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976). Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been considered
in this decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived [see
37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
Regarding independent claims 1 and 6, the examiner's rejection
essentially finds that Lambropoulous teaches every claimed feature except (1)
providing a number which varies by the time a code is assigned relative to other
codes, (2) ensuring that the codes are non-sequential for codes assigned
sequentially, and (3) the code being indicative of a date and time associated with
the assignment of the code. The examiner cites Prosan as teaching a key
programming method that randomizes a serial number at the factory to provide a
key cipher code. The examiner also cites Guerin as teaching a key programming
method with serial number, date, and time information of assignment to detect
false keys. The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007