Appeal 2007-0786
Application 10/262,142
to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 127 S.Ct.
at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. In that regard, the record does not include objective
evidence of unexpected results.
We further note that Cesta discloses a Travel Agent booking service which
searches databases (Cesta, p. 113, para. 46). This may evidence the fact that
communicating with a processor function embedded with a resource (e.g., a hotel
computer) corresponding to a list of desired resources for facilitating a meeting
was well known in the art at the time the application was filed. Reading this
disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would foresee only two options: the
database is on-site or off-site. Given this, it would have been obvious to one with
ordinary skill in the art to choose to communicate with an on-site database and,
thus, with a processor function embedded with a resource corresponding to the list
of desired resources for facilitating the meeting.
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
problem and there are a finite number of identified,
predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good
reason to pursue the known options within his or her
technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it
is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary
skill and common sense.
Id. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
B. Rejection of claims 6, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cesta in view of Applicants’ admitted prior art.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013