Appeal 2007-0954
Application 09/999,074
Bush, 296 F.2d at 496, 131 USPQ at 266-67; Boyer, 363 F.2d at 458 n.2, 150
USPQ at 444 n.2.
Notwithstanding our conclusion that Berg and Guheen considered
separately each independently anticipate representative claim 1, we
nevertheless find that the skilled artisan would have had ample reason on
this record to combine the teachings of Guheen with Berg.
To determine whether an adequate reason exists to combine known
elements, we consider (1) interrelated teachings of multiple patents; (2) the
effects of demands known to the design community or present in the
marketplace; and (3) the background knowledge possessed by a person
having ordinary skill in the art. We need not, however, “seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific [claimed] subject matter” as we can
account for “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., No. 04-1350, slip
op. at 14 (U.S., Apr. 30, 2007).
Contrary to Appellants' argument,9 Guheen in fact discloses
technological means to perform user management (e.g., developing user
profiles via a database and customizing interfaces based on specific user
profiles) as we discussed previously.10 Moreover, Berg’s flow management
engine tracks each user’s identification (e.g., the user’s login name) for each
particular step in a flow in a database.11 Based on these collective teachings,
as well as the inferences and creative steps that the skilled artisan – an
electrical engineer with several years of related industry experience – would
9 See Br. 11.
10 See P. 8-9, supra, of this opinion.
11 See P. 7, supra, of this opinion.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013