Appeal No. 2007-0793
Application No. 09/875,487
1 whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.’” Id. at
2 987-88, 78 USPQ2d at 1336 (quoting In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55
3 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
4
5 ANALYSIS
6 We do not find sufficient facts in either Thomas or Sandus to support
7 the conclusion that one skilled in the art would have been motivated to
8 include the survey of Thomas in the shopping environment of Sandus, as
9 required by independent claims 15, 22, and 27. Thomas’s stated purpose is
10 to more effectively carry out surveys. See paragraph 0009. Thomas
11 contemplates the system being used on all types of surveys. See paragraph
12 0005. We do not find evidence or suggestion which would motivate one
13 skilled in the art to couple the survey system with a sales system such as
14 Sandus.
15 Sandus is concerned with creating an online shopping environment
16 which supports multiple vendors and is aesthetically pleasing to the
17 customers. See paragraphs 0025 and 0026. While Sandus does discuss
18 obtaining data from the user’s shopping transactions, we do not find that this
19 suggests that users should be subjected to a survey such as taught by
20 Thomas.
21 Thus, we do not find that the skilled artisan reviewing Thomas and
22 Sandus would have been motivated to combine the teachings to arrive at the
23 claimed invention as asserted by the Examiner. Accordingly we will not
24 sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013