Appeal No. 2002-1697 Page 6
Application No. 09/023,039
claims their broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require using a computer
to provide a specific type of data to an individual, causing the computer to prompt the
individual to consent to computer-aided delivery of additional data of the same type,
and communicating the consent from the computer to another computer.
2. OBVIOUSNESS DETERMINATION
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the
teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the claimed subject matter
to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, Dolphin discloses "a system for delivering encrypted data on a portable
data storage unit and transmitting an access code from a remote location to decrypt the
encrypted data." col. 1, ll. 12-14. "The data can include any type of data which can be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007