Appeal No. 2005-0903
Application 10/170,305
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants also argue
the Examiner “fails to provide motivation to combine” and “has
used impermissible hindsight.” We find this argument
unpersuasive. We have reviewed the applied references. Contrary
to Appellants’ position, we find that both West and Kesel are
directed to solving the same consumer data gather problem being
addressed by Appellants. See the titles of West and Kesel.
Finally, Appellants argue in the Reply Brief that “[n]owhere
does Kesel disclose, teach or suggest an event funnel profile.”
We agree. To determine whether claim 1 is obvious over the
references, we must first determine the scope of the claim.
Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that “claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.” Our
reviewing court further states, “[t]he terms used in the claims
bear a ‘heavy presumption’ that they mean what they say and have
the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by
persons skilled in the relevant art.” Texas Digital Sys. Inc v.
Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed.
Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1058 (2003).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007