Appeal No. 2004-2232 Page 5
Application No. 09/608,496
2. OBVIOUSNESS DETERMINATION
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the
prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of
ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976)).
Here, Goil "address[es]: (1) scalability in multi-dimensional systems for OLAP
[i.e., On-Line Analytical Processing] and multi-dimensional analysis, (2) integration of
data mining with the OLAP framework, and (3) high performance by using parallel
processing for OLAP and data mining." Abs., ll. 18-22 (italics omitted). Besides "not
teach[ing] the predictive model as depicted in figure 2 of the [appellant's] application,"
(Examiner's Answer at 4), the examiner has not shown that the reference teaches a
model-building mechanism that builds any predictive model that generates an output for
a derived measure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007