Appeal 2007-0271
Application 09/750,948
§ 102 rejection based on parachute’s “inherent operating characteristics”),
cited with approval in In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Clearly, “data analysis tools” and “executable
instructions” would have been necessary to analyze the customer
information in Net Perceptions’ recommendation engine and a “set of rules”
would have been necessary to then provide agents with “pertinent customer
information and specific purchase recommendations” for a specific
customer. Appellant has not provided any evidence sufficient to “prove that
the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the
characteristic relied on.” In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ
226, 229 (CCPA 1971), cited with approval in King, 801 F.2d at 1327, 231
USPQ at 138. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 11, rejected under § 103(a), Appellant again
argues a single limitation is not met, i.e., "one or more data analysis tools
comprising executable instructions for analyzing said customer data from
said plurality of channels and determining one or more patterns from said
data.” (Br. 6.)
We have discussed this limitation with respect to the § 102(b)
rejection, except for the “from said plurality of channels” language. We find
this additional language would have been expressly taught, or at least
suggested, by the combination of Net Perceptions and Andrews. (See FFs 5,
6.) One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the
disclosed multiple channels, as described in Andrews, to collect data to
analyze buying patterns, as described in both Net Perceptions and Andrews,
and would have had a reasonable likelihood of success. (See FFs 5, 6, 7.)
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013