Appeal No. 2006-0430 Page 8
Application No. 09/859,425
content elements, some of which are graphical elements and others of which are textual
elements.
2. Obviousness Determination
The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations
including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258
F.3d 1379, 1383, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d
994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34
USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Of course, "'[e]very . . . reference relies to some
extent upon knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement that [which is]
disclosed. . . .'" In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977)
(quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 424 (CCPA 1973)). Those
persons "must be presumed to know something" about the art "apart from what the
references disclose." In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA
1962).
Here, Tso's "invention may . . . be used for dynamic translation of data, such as
Web pages, to a user's native language (determined by user preference or
automatically by the physical location of network client 12 or transcoding server 34).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007