Appeal 2007-0271
Application 09/750,948
multiple channels”); ¶ 11 (Companies, such as Net Perceptions, have used
“multichannel strategy” to “match[] data collected in one place to the
originating customer in another.”).)
8. The availability and use of multiple channels in the Net
Perceptions system, as described in Andrews, combined with Net
Perceptions’ use of collected data to analyze buying patterns, would have
motivated the skilled artisan to collect such data using multiple channels
with a reasonable likelihood of success. (See FFs 5, 6; Answer 10 (quoted
above).)
DISCUSSION
With respect to the rejection of claim 1 under § 102(b), Appellant
disputes a single limitation, i.e., the step of “utilizing one or more data
analysis tools comprising executable instructions to analyze said customer
data to determine one or more patterns and generate a set of rules based
upon said patterns.” (Br. 5, 6.) We find this limitation is fully disclosed in
Net Perceptions. See FF 2, 3. While the express terms “data analysis tools,”
“executable instructions,” and “set of rules” do not appear in Net
Perceptions, they are necessarily and inherently present, as would have been
recognized by the skilled artisan.
Under “35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must identically
appear in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim,” Gechter
v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Nevertheless, a limitation can be satisfied through inherency. See, e.g., In re
Ludke, 441 F.2d 660, 663, 169 USPQ 563, 566 (CCPA 1971) (affirming a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013