Appeal No. 2005-0100 Page 8
Application No. 09/962,744
which depend therefrom; of claim 31; of claims 32-34, which depend therefrom; of claim
35; and of claims 36-38, which depend therefrom.
"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, the examiner does not show that teachings from the prior art itself would
have suggested replacing a geographic target element of Kreiner with a direct
marketing region defined by Nielsen based on television signal areas in the continental
United States. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 25 and 26,
which indirectly depend from claim 23.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007