Appeal No. 2004-0121
Application No. 09/507,368
results as input, and determining whether to issue an award using
the second results as input only if the first game situation is a
previous game situation from a previous play of the game by the
user.
The examiner has properly indicated that the methods of
Eggleston and the appellants share common goals and concepts.
For example, patentee’s incentive program may involve the
consumer’s historical participation therein (see lines 16-18 in
column 13) or a combination of single incentive program types to
build a combined incentive program (e.g., see the sentence
bridging columns 31 and 32) or the successive completion of a
series of programs over a period of time (see lines 11-16 in
column 35). These concepts are at least similar to those upon
which the here claimed invention is based. Nevertheless, the
examiner has not identified and we do not independently find any
disclosure in the Eggleston patent of the above discussed and
here claimed combination of features (e.g., see steps (e), (f)
and (g) in appealed claim 1).
Under these circumstances, it is our determination that the
examiner has failed to carry his burden of establishing a prima
facie case of anticipation. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We cannot sustain,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007