Appeal 2007-1731
Application 10/796,051
3. Claims 27-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Davis.
OPINION
The allocation of burdens requires that the USPTO produce the factual
basis for its rejection of an application under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(citing In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA
1967)). The one who bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of unpatentability is the examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The Examiner applies the teachings of Baker and Hu in an effort to
demonstrate prima facie obviousness of instant claim 7. (Answer 4-5.)
Appellants argue that, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Baker does not
describe communication means at the client for passing the ID, password,
and address to the server via the Internet in response to a request. According
to Appellants, the user ID, password, and client address are not transmitted
through the public network or Internet 100 (Baker Fig. 1) to the network
resources 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105. (Br. 12.)
The Examiner responds that the features upon which Appellants rely,
“(i.e. the network resources,),” are not recited in the rejected claim(s).
(Answer 11.) Appellants did not, and need not, file a reply brief to point out
that Appellants’ reference to “network resources” in the Appeal Brief relates
to the disclosure of Baker, rather than a requirement of “network resources”
in claim 7.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013