Appeal No. 2002-2204
Application 09/187,897
rejection fails to establish a prima facie case of anticipation.
As noted above, however, the examiner’s rejection goes into
substantial detail as to how the claimed invention is fully met
by Scroggie. The examiner’s explanation of the rejection is
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of anticipation.
Taking claim 1, for example, appellants broadly assert that
Scroggie does not disclose depending the transmission of a
manufacture’s product sample offer to the user upon whether the
user’s profile data meet user profile criteria associated with
the manufacturer’s product sample offer [brief, page 6]. Other
than this conclusory statement, appellants provide no further
discussion. The examiner’s rejection indicates that user profile
data can include zip code, preferences and buying pattern, and
the rejection points to portions of Scroggie where this profile
data is used to determine what offers to make to a given user.
We agree with the examiner that this data in Scroggie constitutes
profile data which is used to match profile criteria for a given
product. Therefore, the rejection has established a prima facie
case of anticipation. Since appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments to support their position that the
examiner’s position is incorrect, we sustain the examiner’s
rejection. This same type of analysis can be applied to each of
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007