Appeal No. 2001-1000
Application No. 08/835,404
Jones et al. (Jones) 5,239,462 Aug. 24, 1993
Radigan, “Fighting over Internet Payments,” US Banker, Vol. 106, No. 2, pp 43-45
(Feb. 1996)
“GMAC’s 10-Minute Credit Review,” PR Newswire (Mar. 20, 1997) (PR Newswire)
Claims 1-9 and 13-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jones in view of PR Newswire. Claims 10-12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jones in view of PR Newswire and
Radigan.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 11, mailed Sep. 26, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 10, filed Aug. 2, 2000) for appellant’s
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
To reject claims in an application under section 103, an
examiner must show an unrebutted prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1557, 34
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007