Appeal No. 2004-1413
Application No. 09/475,941
a “selection,” we find that this is a choice of windows to preview rather than the
selection for the automatic fill function.
Additionally, the examiner remarks that appellant merely is arguing the
references individually which is not an adequate showing of nonobviousness. (See
answer at pages 6-7.) We disagree with the examiner. From our review of the
teachings of Root or Douglas in combination with Crawford, we do not find the two-step
process as recited in independent claim 1, and we do not find that the examiner has
established a convincing line of reasoning absent a clear teaching why it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a two-
step process as recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, we find that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the invention as recited in
independent claim 1, and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 2-6, the examiner adds the teachings of Kausik
as evidence of the use of a digital wallet. (See answer at page 4.) While we agree with
the examiner that a digital wallet is not new, we do not find that the teachings of Kausik
remedy the deficiency in the base combination noted above. Therefore, we find that the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the invention
recited in dependent claims 2-6, and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent
claims 2-6.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007