Appeal No. 2003-0205 Application 09/504,502 that is verified. This verification step also includes verifying the authenticity of the asset. The examiner, however, has not established that the disclosure of verifying the authenticity of the asset includes, either expressly or inherently, a disclosure of verifying the old ownership data before it is replaced by the new ownership data. The examiner argues that the appellant has admitted (parent application no. 08/960,492, response filed January 4, 2000, paper no. 8, pages 2-4), in response to a nonenablement rejection, that a title record and a bill of sale both include the seller’s name, and that to enhance the title process in the appellant’s method a comparison of ownership data in the bill of sale to ownership data in the title record must be made (answer, pages 9-10). The examiner, however, has not established that Rose, Jr. discloses, either expressly or inherently, this title process enhancing step. For the above reasons we find that the examiner has not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation of the appellant’s claimed method. 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007