Appeal No. 2002-0819
Application No. 09/047,533
argues that Hall determines if a customer order can be fulfilled
within an acceptable wait time and therefore, teaches the
geographical proximity as a requisite for completing the
transaction and transferring money (answer, page 14).
The initial burden of establishing reasons for
unpatentability rests on the Examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner
must produce a factual basis supported by teaching in a prior art
reference or shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable
demonstration, consistent with the holding in Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). This 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); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA
1966). However, “the Board must not only assure that the
requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but
must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed
to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
First, to address the Examiner’s assertion that the timing
of the customer’s arrival is the same as determining geographical
proximity, we note that the claims require that the transaction
amount from the customer’s account be transferred only if the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007