Appeal No. 2006-1342
Application No. 09/488,471
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the BizRate system
by indexing the rating data and storing the rating data that were indexed in a data repository as
taught by Peters in order to update and retrieve the rating data of a business survey (answer-p. 8).
We have reviewed the evidence before us, including the applied references, the arguments
of appellant and the examiner, and we conclude that the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. §103, based on the BizRate and Peters
references.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. §103, the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of obviousness under §103, the
examiner must produce a factual basis supported by a teaching in a prior art reference or shown
to be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing court requires this
evidence in order to establish a prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ
785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The examiner may satisfy his/her burden only by showing some
objective teaching in the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in
the art would lead the individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references. In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007