Ex Parte Dahl - Page 6

                  Appeal   2006-2937                                                                                           
                  Application   09/840,188                                                                                     
                  our review of the rejected claims and in light to the Examiner’s brief                                       
                  analysis and statement of the rejection in the Answer, we find that the                                      
                  Examiner has not established a prima facie case of non-statutory subject                                     
                  matter.  We find that the Examiner has not shown that the database                                           
                  management system as recited in independent claims 48 and 86 are not                                         
                  machines that perform a “useful, concrete and tangible result” of managing                                   
                  access to the data in the database. Therefore, we find that the database                                     
                  management system of independent claims 48 and 86 is eligible to be                                          
                  patented under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection                                  
                  under 35 U.S.C. § 101.                                                                                       
                                                      35 U.S.C. § 103                                                          

                          In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the                                    
                  initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.  See In re                                   
                  Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  A                                      
                  prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence that                                   
                  the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary                                    
                  skill in the relevant art having the references before him to make the                                       
                  proposed combination or other modification.  See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d                                     
                  1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).  Furthermore, the                                                 
                  conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be                                    
                  supported by evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in the prior art                                  
                  or by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that                                 
                  would have led that individual 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).  Rejections based on § 103                                       

                                                              6                                                                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013