Appeal No. 2005-0956 Page 8
Application No. 09/342,866
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at
1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and consideration of
all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision
on appeal, the Board must necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.”
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but
must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support the
agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434
(Fed. Cir. 2002).
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant argues at pages 7-13 of
the brief, that Marino is a non-analogous reference. We find this argument
unpersuasive. Our review of the Goldhaber and Marino references finds that
both are directed to the same field of goods or service price determination based
on collateral activity. This is the same field addressed by Appellant.
Appellant argues that his field of invention is the specific field of price
determination based on the collateral activity of “competitive or entertainment-
based” activity, while Marino is directed to only the very specific field of price
determination is based on the collateral activity of “subscriber’s attention”
(particularly to advertisements). We find this argument without merit. We find
nothing in claim 1 that limits the claim to only “competitive or entertainment-
based” activity. Rather, the claim merely recites “a Price-Determining-Activity
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007