Appeal No. 2001-1000
Application No. 08/835,404
USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the absence of a
proper prima facie case of obviousness, an applicant who
complies with the other statutory requirements is entitled to a
patent. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On appeal to the
Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing
insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by
rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary
indicia of nonobviousness.
In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
At the outset, we note that the examiner has addressed the limitations of
independent claim 1 identifying what is taught expressly by Jones and PR Newswire
and what is not explicitly taught. The examiner admits that Jones does not teach credit
card transactions (answer at page 3) and maintains that the methods of automated
credit application approval using facsimile transmission were taught by Jones and that
PR Newswire teaches and suggests the use of OCR processing for credit application
processing. The examiner further maintains that in light of the teachings of Jones
regarding an application for “personal revolving debt,” it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art that this would similarly extend to credit card transactions.
(See answer at page 3.) We agree with the examiner that Jones teaches and suggests
the automated processing of a paper application. We find that the scanning and
facsimile transmission and interpretation of the image would have been OCR
processing and providing an automatic approval status to the applicant. (Jones at
columns 2-3.) Additionally, Jones discloses that various approval statuses may be
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007