Appeal No. 2005-0962
Application 09/839,245
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
page 6 of the brief, “in Katz, a quantity of a non-commodity is
never provided to a network.” The Examiner responds at page 8 of
the answer, “Katz does teach a plurality of sellers providing
information including a quantity available for use on a computer
system.” We find Appellant’s position to be the better.
We have reviewed the Katz patent and contrary to the
Examiner’s position in the final rejection (paper no. 7), we do
not find “a quantity of a non-commodity” as alleged by the
Examiner.
Appellant argues at page 7 of the brief, “neither
[reference] ‘make a comparison . . .” as required by the present
claims. The Examiner responds that Official Notice was used as
to this maximum process cost feature. We have reviewed the final
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007