Ex Parte 5983207 et al - Page 18

                Appeal No. 2006-2083                                                                                                   
                Reexamination Control No. 90/006,352                                                                                   
                        Goldmoney is based upon 3 patents awarded for its concepts and breakthrough                                    
                        technology. Managed by former Morgan Stanley and Chase Manhattan                                               
                        Executives, Goldmoney works closely with partners to ensure reliability and                                    
                        security for your gold.  [Emphasis in original]                                                                
                Insofar as the commercial system is based on the invention of three different patents, the                             
                patentee has failed to establish the necessary nexus between the alleged commercial success and                        
                the subject matter of claim 1 of the underlying patent in this appeal.  The patentee does not                          
                describe the specifics of the payment system provided through the internet website at                                  
                goldmoney.com.  Nexus cannot be presumed but must be established.  Even a mere conclusory                              
                assertion that there is nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the alleged                              
                commercial success would not be persuasive.  See Huang, 100 F.3d at 140, 40 USPQ2d at 1690                             
                ("Huang's affidavit contains a conclusory assertion that, in his opinion, the sales of the grips                       
                derive from the increased thickness of the polyurethane layer and the alignment of the pores.                          
                This merely represents the inventor's opinion as to the purchaser's reason for buying the product,                     
                and, alone is insufficient.  Instead, the applicant must submit some factual evidence that                             
                demonstrates the nexus between the sales and the claimed invention - for example, an affidavit                         
                from the purchaser explaining that the product was purchased due to the claimed features.").                           
                        For the foregoing reasons, the patentee’s arguments based on secondary considerations as                       
                objective indicia of nonobviousness are not persuasive and are insufficient to rebut the prima                         
                facie case of obviousness.                                                                                             
                        In addition to all of the foregoing, a separate basis exists for sustaining the rejections on                  
                appeal.  The patentee’s argument against a conclusion of obviousness is based on the assertion                         
                that the cited prior art provides no teaching for eliminating payment risk by having at least as                       
                much commodity on reserve in secure storage as there are outstanding commodity-based cash.                             
                Even assuming that no prima facie case could have been made by the examiner that that is how                           


                                                                  18                                                                   


Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007