Appeal No. 2004-2250
Application No. 09/542,154
as well as public content. As stated above, the Examiner
properly combines the teachings identifying other sources
available to one of ordinary skill in the art with Brown, which
actually provides for flexibility in customizing the toolbar
buttons by selecting from the sources suggested by these other
references.
A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the
teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed.
Cir. 1993); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-
Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.
1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In
considering the question of the obviousness of the claimed
invention in view of the prior art relied upon, the Examiner is
expected to make the factual determination set forth in Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to
provide a reason why one having ordinary skill in the pertinent
art would have been led to modify the prior art or to combine
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007