Appeal 2006-3387
Application 09/385,489
Declarant’s statement that at the time of the invention, there was no system
available to independently account for sales of promoted product. On the contrary,
the disclosure in Jones provides just such an independent audit system for use by
manufacturers and retailers.
Weighing all evidence of obviousness against all evidence of non-
obviousness, we find that Appellants’ evidence of long-felt need is not sufficient to
overcome the obviousness of the claimed invention. As such, the invention of
claims 1-29, 37-73, 88, and 89 would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of Jones and Schultz.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-29, 37-76, 88, and 89 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jones and Schultz.
CLAIMS 30-32
Appellants argue claims 30-32 as a group (Br. 59-61). As such, we select
claim 30 as a representative claim and the remaining claims stand or fall together
with claim 30. Appellants reiterate the same arguments made as to claim 1 in
support of patentability of claim 30. We do not find these arguments persuasive
for the reasons stated supra. Appellants further contend that claim 30 is not
obvious because Jones and Schultz do not disclose providing access to the
independent system operator database by the retailer and manufacturer to
26
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013