Appeal No. 2007-0395 Page 14
Application No. 09/789,678
1 evidence that such a service is one a local retailer would normally provide a
2 customer.
3 With respect to differences between the problems the prior art
4 methods and the claimed method are solving, they would have been
5 pertinent had the claim been drafted to reflect those differences. Here the
6 claimed method encompasses the method described in the prior art.
7 Appellant has not persuasively shown which feature of the claims, as they
8 are broadly worded, Walker does not describe.
9
10 CONCLUSION OF LAW
11 On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the
12 Examiner erred in rejecting the claims over the prior art. The Examiner’s
13 evidence and rationale is sufficient to make out a prima facie case of claims
14 1, 3, 6-10, 12-14, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Walker and
15 Rogers.
16 Appellant has not sustained his burden of overcoming the prima facie
17 case made out by the Examiner.
18
19 DECISION
20 Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12-14, 16, and 18 is
21 affirmed.
22 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
23 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 CFR
24 § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
25 AFFIRMED
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013