Ex Parte McBrearty et al - Page 6

             Appeal 2007-0731                                                                                   
             Application 09/899,454                                                                             

        1                 having  ordinary  skill  in  the  art  at  the  time  of  the                         
        2                 invention-support  the  legal  conclusion  of  obviousness.                           
        3                 (internal citations omitted).                                                         
        4    Id. at 988, 78 USPQ2d at 1337.  To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the                
        5    references being combined do not need to explicitly suggest combining their                        
        6    teachings.  See id. at 987-88, 78 USPQ2d at 1337-38 (“the teaching, motivation, or                 
        7    suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than expressly                    
        8    stated in the references”).  “’The test for an implicit showing is what the combined               
        9    teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the                    
        10   problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in                 
        11   the art.’”   Id. at 987-88, 78 USPQ2d at 1336 (quoting In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365,                
        12   1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).                                                      
        13                                       ANALYSIS                                                       
        14         Claim 1 recites “means for tracking the rates of said bookmarked Web                         
        15   documents transmitted from each of said sources … displaying in association with                   
        16   a displayed list of bookmarks for Web documents, data on rates of transmission of                  
        17   said bookmarked documents.”  Independent claims 13 and 25 recite similar                           
        18   limitations.  As mentioned above Pitkow teaches displaying at the user’s machine,                  
        19   a list of bookmarks along with an indication of popularity.  Pitkow does not                       
        20   determine the popularity based upon transmission rates of the web document from                    
        21   the source.  Appellants admit, on page 7 of the Brief, that Ryan teaches tracking                  
        22   transmission rates of web documents at the source.  Further, as discussed supra,                   
        23   Ryan teaches that tracking transmission rates is used in determining popularity.                   
        24   Given these two documents we find that one skilled in the art would have been led                  
        25   to the claimed invention of tracking web transmission of a document at the source                  
        26   to determine popularity and display the popularity along with the bookmark.  Thus,                 

                                                       6                                                        


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013