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.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007