Appeal No. 2004-0214 Page 11
Application No. 09/446,516
skill in the art. Accordingly, the examiner has not met the initial burden of presenting a
case of obviousness.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to
12, 15 to 17, 20 to 32, 34 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
The prior art rejection of claims 13, 14, 18, 19 and 33
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Deaton or the rejection of claims 14, 19 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Deaton in view of De Lapa.
As in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1 to 12, 15 to 17, 20 to 32, 34
and 35, we note that the examiner has not presented any evidence suggesting
modifying Deaton to have a CRITERIA file as claimed which is distinct from a
COUPON-TYPE file as claimed.1 Accordingly, the examiner has not met the initial
burden of presenting a case of obviousness.
1 We have reviewed the patent to De Lapa but find nothing therein which makes up for the
deficiency of Deaton discussed above.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007