Appeal 2007-1308
Application 10/097,398
1 research and therefore would have been led to lay out an environment for
2 controlling the implementation of such research as taught by Zaltman.
3 Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine
4 Zaltman’s environment for controlling the implementation of market research with
5 Eldering’s marketing simulation and transaction processes.
6 This is generally consistent with the Examiner’s reason provided for combining
7 Eldering and Zaltman (Answer 4).
8 Thus, from the above Findings of Fact, supported by substantial evidence, we
9 conclude that
10 • The art applied shows or suggests the specific combination of the elements
11 found in the claims from the two references.
12 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12 under 35
13 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Eldering and Zaltman.
14
15 DECISION
16 To summarize, our decision is as follows:
17 • The rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
18 Eldering and Zaltman is sustained.
19 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
20 may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2006).
21 AFFIRMED
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013