Appeal 2007-1775
Application 09/749,106
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason
to attempt to make the composition or device, or carry out the
claimed process, and would have had a reasonable expectation
of success in doing so. See Medichem [S.A. v. Robalo, S.L.]
437 F.3d [1157,] 1164 [(Fed. Cir. 2006)]; Noelle v. Lederman,
355 F.3d 1343, 1351–52 [69 USPQ2d 1508] (Fed. Cir. 2004);
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 229
F.3d 1120, 1121 [56 USPQ2d 1456] (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 [82
USPQ2d 1385] (2007) (a combination of elements “must do
more than yield a predictable result”; combining elements that
work together “in an unexpected and fruitful manner” would
not have been obvious).
PharmaStem Therapeutics Inc. v. Viacell Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1360, 83
USPQ2d 1289, 1301-02 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 15
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1
and 15 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Bonomi in view of
Pallakoff. Since Appellants’ arguments have treated these claims as a single
group which stands or falls together, we will select independent claim 1 as
the representative claim because we find it is the broader of the two claims
in this group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants contend the primary Bonomi reference does not teach a
subscriber group having at least two (i.e., a plurality of) subscribers wherein
each subscriber belonging to the subscriber group maintains an independent
account. Appellants argue that the portion of Bonomi cited by the Examiner
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013