Appeal 2007-0472
Application 09/931,817
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, 1444, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
2. Claims are given the broadest reasonable construction consistent with
the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner has made a limitation-by-limitation analysis of the
claims. Based on the analysis, the Examiner finds that Sporgis anticipates or
renders obvious the claimed subject matter. FF 5. The burden now shifts to
Appellant to come forward with evidence or argument showing error in
Examiner’s determination.
Appellant contends that Sporgis fails to disclose or suggest a game
that creates awareness of a sponsor by interacting with an advertising object
of the sponsor to solve a clue. FF 6. The evidence does not support
Appellant’s contention.
Sporgis describes a treasure hunt type game whereby clues are
communicated to the players of the game through a website displayed on
web enabled communication devices. FF 8. Sporgis also discloses that the
website may include advertisements. FF 8-10. Accordingly, Sporgis
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013