Appeal No. 2006-1753
Application No. 09/732,037
2000). See also In re Thrift, 298 F. 3d 1357, 1363, 63 USPQ2d 2002, 2008
(Fed. Cir. 2002). These showings by the examiner are an essential part of
complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If
that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima
facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on
the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976). Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been considered
in this decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived [see
37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
Regarding the independent claims, the examiner's rejection essentially
finds that Meunier teaches every claimed feature except for (1) determining if any
user has acknowledged the electronic notification after a period of time; (2)
electronically reminding users that have not acknowledged the notification; and
(3) electronically updating a specification coordinator to indicate that any user
acknowledged the message. The examiner cites Eaton as teaching a
communication system that (1) transmits messages to users and determines
whether the user acknowledges the message after a period of time, and (2)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007