Ex Parte Footer et al - Page 6

                 Appeal 2006-3117                                                                                        
                 Application 09/732,498                                                                                  
                                                     ISSUE                                                               
                        The pivotal issue in the appeal before us is as follows:                                         
                 Have Appellants shown4 that the Examiner failed to establish that the                                   
                 combined disclosures of Brown, Travaille, Leermakers and Gessel/Diwan                                   
                 render the claimed invention unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?                                     
                 Particularly, would one of ordinary skill have found a sufficient rationale to                          
                 combine Brown, Travaille, Leermakers and Gessel/Diwan to yield the                                      
                 claimed invention?                                                                                      
                                                FINDINGS OF FACT                                                         
                        The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of                               
                 the evidence.                                                                                           
                                                        The Invention                                                    
                 1. Appellants invented a method and system (Figure 1) for collecting and                                
                 recording in an interactive data repository navigation and transaction data                             
                 pertaining to a customer’s use of an interactive television.  (Specification 6.)                        
                                                                                                                        
                        4  In the examination of a patent application, the Examiner bears the                            
                 initial burden of showing a prima facie case of unpatentability.  In re                                 
                 Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  When                                
                 that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the applicant to rebut.  Id.; see                         
                 also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1954-55 (Fed.                                
                 Cir. 2005) (finding rebuttal evidence unpersuasive).  If the applicant                                  
                 produces rebuttal evidence of adequate weight, the prima facie case of                                  
                 unpatentability is dissipated.  Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.                            
                 Thereafter, patentability is determined in view of the entire record.  Id.                              
                 However, Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate                                 
                 error in the Examiner’s position.  See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86,                                
                 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an                                      
                 applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient                                
                 evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case                                
                 with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re                                  
                 Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).                                   
                                                           6                                                             

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013