Appeal No. 2004-2044
Application No. 09/476,708
find that more than sufficient motivation to combine exists
within the four corners of the Wood et al. and Reeder patents.
Therefore, for the reason discussed at A) above, the
Examiner has not met the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness and we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 61 and 64 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 invention as set forth in claim 61. Accordingly,
we reverse.
With respect to dependent claim 61, we note that the
Examiner has relied on Official Notice solely to teach
"transmitting an authorization prompt" [answer, page 8].
Official Notice in combination with Wood et al. and Reeder fails
to cure the deficiencies of Wood et al. and Reeder noted above
with respect to claim 59. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons
as set forth above.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007