Appeal No. 2003-0854
Application No. 09/640,030
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of
obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual
basis supported by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to
be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Such
evidence is required in order to establish a prima facie case.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
(Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner must not only identify the
elements in the prior art, but also show “some objective teaching
in the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art would lead the individual to combine
the relevant teachings of the references.” In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
A review of the applied prior art confirms that Nevo merely
teaches a method for determining the trading status of a
financial market and for conveying to a user information
regarding the significant changes of the market (col. 3, lines
15-30). Nevo uses different sensors to measure values of
different financial parameters which are normalized and used to
generate security’s performance indicator (SPI) (col. 5, lines
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007