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 ) ) ) 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007