Appeal No. 2003-2102 Page 5
Application No. 09/254,723
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. 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).
The examiner's position is set forth on pages 4 and 5 of the
examiner's answer. The examiner asserts (answer, page 4) that
"Vazvan does not spell out that payment information may be
derived from a wireless source, before actually paying the
account." The examiner maintains (id.) that
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to derive
payment information on an account prior to making a payment
to the account because this would allow the user to get an
account total before authorizing payment using the payment
terminal.
The examiner additionally asserts (id.) that "Vazvan also
does not clearly teach the use of a PIN number, and registering
the portable terminal in the radio network. To overcome these
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007