Appeal No. 2006-2563
Application No. 09/624,107
background or expertise of the associate (or based on the type of
business the associate is in), to cause the outputting of the
plurality of advertisers’ links or web site addresses on the
user’s computer screen …” (answer, 23rd to 24th pages). Another
example of part of the sentence is “thereby enabling the
associate to participate in the advertising referral service or
system and become associate of at least one advertiser and market
via the associate’s web site a product sold at the at least the
advertiser’s web site in return for a commission when a customer
purchases at the advertiser’s or merchant’s web site a product
when the user seamlessly or effortlessly clicks on one of the
displayed advertiser’s links associated with the graphical icon
or keyword automatically displayed on the user’s computer via the
advertiser associate’s web site” (answer, 24th page).
For a prima facie case of obviousness to be established, the
teachings from the prior art itself must appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976). The mere fact that the prior art could be modified as
proposed by the examiner is not sufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
2 The pages of the examiner’s answer are not numbered.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013