Appeal No. 2000-0963
Application No. 08/736,883
it would be by the artisan. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169
USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability of the claim language
depends on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand what is claimed in light of the specification. Seattle
Box Co., v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826,
221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We agree with appellants that the artisan would have no
difficulty ascertaining the scope of the invention recited in
claims 1 and 89-91. The phrase “[means for] entering the data,
which is unstructured freeform data” in claims 1 and 89 clearly
means the exact same thing as the phrase “[means for] entering
unstructured freeform data” which is used, and not objected to, in
other claims on appeal. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1 and
89-91 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is not
sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1, 20, 57-59, 62-84
and 86-104 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to establish a
factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.
1988). In so doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007