Appeal No. 2006-1817 Page 4
Application No. 09/851,514
Answer, p. 7.) The examiner concludes:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to add Harhen’s further analysis and optimization
of business and marketing objectives with inconsistency
resolution to Gerace’s optimization of marketing
objectives. One would have been motivated to do this in
order to provide more advanced modeling and, therefore,
better optimization to Gerace’s optimization.
(Examiner’s Answer, p. 7.)
The appellants present three arguments for patentability of claim 1. First,
the appellants contend that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness, because the prior art does not teach or suggest the recitation in
claim 1, i.e., “said campaign plan being defined to automatically detecting
contradictions between said constraints and other aspects of said entered
management information, automatically identifying resolutions to said
contradictions, and implementing resolutions in said campaign plan.” (Claim 1,
quoted in Appellants’ Brief, p. 8.)
Second, the appellants contend that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness, because the prior art fails to provide any
suggestion or motivation to modify or combine Gerace and Harhen. (Appellants’
Brief, p. 12.) The appellants argue that Gerace and Harhen are “directed to
solving completely different problems” and that the examiner has failed to provide
objective evidence of the requisite motivation or suggestion to combine or modify
the cited references. (Appellants’ Brief, pp. 12-13.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007