Appeal No. 2003-1025
Application No. 09/224,918
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
V. Whether the Rejection of Claims 4, 5, 18, and 19 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 4, 5, 18, and 19. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to dependent claim 4, we note that the Examiner
has relied on the Carlson reference solely to teach, "single
tokens can identify a group of users" (Answer at page 26). The
Carlson reference in combination with the Wobber reference fails
to cure the deficiencies of Wobber noted above with respect to
claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons as set forth above.
Conclusion
We have not sustained the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of appealed claims
1, 3-5, 7-11, 14, 15, 17-25, and 28-49. We have, however,
sustained the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 14, 15, 17-25, and 28-49, all
of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner's decision
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007