Appeal No. 2006-0329
Application 09/839,037
information from the customer client via the computer network”.
Cusack’s reception information is provided by the provider
(supplier) not the buyer (client) (col. 6, lines 1-3; col. 7, lines
12-14 and 65-67; col. 8, lines 8-20; col. 9, lines 6-14 and 28-32).
The examiner has not explained how the applied prior art would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, receiving
secure area part reception information from a customer client.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
of the appellants’ claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 14-16 and 18
over Muhme in view of Cusack, claims 14, 17, 19, 20, 22 and 23 over
Muhme in view of Cusack and Nelson, and claim 21 over Muhme in view
of Cusack, Nelson and Byford, are reversed.
REVERSED
TERRY J. OWENS ) Administrative Patent
Judge )
)
)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007