Appeal 2007-0789
Application 09/810,063
obviousness for our consideration.
Reasoning in support the legal conclusion of obviousness
43. In reaching a conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner made the following
statement:
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the charging/accounting
structure of Odlyzko to include calculating said usage based on connection
time, as taught by Saari et al., because it would advantageously allow to
implement a flexible and effective charging capability that accounts for the
particular use of a network service connections and other resources by users
of the network (Saari et al., col. 1, lines 62-67).
(Answer 4).
44. Appellants argued that “[n]either Odlyzko nor Saari nor a combination of the
two teaches or suggests Appellants’ independent claims.” (Appeal Br. 11 and
Reply Br. 3).
C. Principles of Law
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the
subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and (3) the level
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013