Appeal No. 2005-0509 Page 11
Application No. 09/449,237
IV. Whether the Rejection of Claims 83-84, 86-87, 90, and 95-97 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 claims 83-84, 86-87,
90, and 95-97. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to independent claim 86, Appellant argues at page 13 of the
brief, “Szabo discusses adaptive models for users already in groups, not
automatically assigning users to groups based on user attributes.” We have
reviewed the references, and we agree with Appellant. We find that the second
assigning step of claim 86 is not reasonably taught by the references. Therefore,
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.
V. Whether the Rejection of Claims 88-89 and 91-92 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 claims 88-89 and 91-
92. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to dependent claims 88-89 and 91-92, we note that the
Examiner has relied on the Roth reference solely to teach “workout guidelines
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007