Appeal 2007-0114
Application 10/990,960
C. Principles of Law
1. “The prima facie case is a procedural tool of patent examination,
allocating the burdens of going forward as between examiner and applicant.
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707 n.3, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 n.3 (Fed. Cir.
1990). The term ‘prima facie case’ refers only to the initial examination
step. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976). As discussed in In re Piasecki, the examiner bears the initial burden,
on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie
case of unpatentability. If that burden is met, the burden of coming forward
with evidence or argument shifts to the applicant.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d,
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
D. Analysis
Claims are given the broadest reasonable construction consistent with
the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here the instant claims are not limited to the extent
the Examiner argues. FF 2. The claims are broad enough to read on
generating a single output value and predicting the next price movement in
the financial market based on the result of that single output value. The first
step the claims recite is “generating at least one output value.” This step
encompasses generating a single output value. The last step the claims recite
is “predicting the next price movement in the financial market based on a
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013