Appeal No. 2002-0124
Application No. 09/192,842
Without any basis for doing so, the examiner finds that
merely because Day discloses a means for generating a customized
customer offer list, it would have been obvious to extend this
teaching to the generation of any type of report, including,
conveniently, a “products-of-interest” report and a “coupons-to-
expire” report, as claimed by appellants. Such impermissible
hindsight gleaned from appellants’ own disclosure cannot form a
proper basis for a legal conclusion of obviousness within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 4,
6 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK:clm
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007