Appeal No. 2003-0072
Application No. 09/032,407
These showings by the examiner are an essential part of complying
with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
We reverse.
It is the examiner’s position that Ginter suggests the
performance of electronic commerce transactions over an unsecure
network without requiring encryption, at column 224, lines 14-25,
but lacks an explicit recitation of “performing an electronic
commerce transaction over an unsecure network without requiring
encryption” (answer-page 6). So the examiner turns to Schneier,
at pages 37, 483-502 and vii, for a suggestion of “performing an
electronic commerce transaction over an unsecure network without
requiring encryption.” The examiner then concludes that it would
have been obvious to add the modifications of Schneier to the
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007