Appeal 2007-0039
Application 09/799,413
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
Leapfrog Enter., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161,
82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007)). “One of the ways in
which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there
existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an
obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-7, 9-12, and 16-22
Appellant contends that Ferrel stores only completed stories on a
database instead of the components of a story for use in making or creating a
story (Br. 7). The Examiner’s position is based on characterizing the content
objects of Ferrel as the components stored in a database (Answer 10). We
agree with the Examiner. Ferrel uses objects as components for authoring,
which include both design and content. The objects are stored using a
caching object store (COS) which functions as the publication storage and
distribution center in each server (FF 3).
Appellant further argues that a story is released and stored after its
creation, which means that publishers have access only to the complete
stories, and not to the data stored as components to be used in making up the
story (Br. 8). The Examiner’s response is focused on Ferrel’s content
objects stored in the servers connecting the publisher and the customer’s
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013