Appeal No. 2003-1177
Application No. 09/510,054
obviousness of the claimed invention in view of the prior art
relied upon, the Examiner is expected to make the factual
determination set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why one
having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been led to
modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to arrive
at the claimed invention. See also In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350,
1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Such evidence is
required in order to establish a prima facie case. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir.
1984). However, “the Board must not only assure that the
requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but
must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed
to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
We find ourselves in agreement with Appellant that it is the
document data stream that is modified in Meyerzon and not the
elements of metadata to render a weighted metadata. Meyerzon, in
fact, provides for an indexing engine for creating and
maintaining an index of Web documents that, when modified by
removing the current document from the index, provides better
search results to the users (col. 10, lines 43-57). Schultz, on
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007