Appeal 2007-2312
Application 09/681,815
7. DeWolf discloses “[t]ransactions, regarding the exchange of ownership
rights, for example, would be incorporated into the system. Exchanges of objects
would then have an audit-able trail that would relate to ownership over time”
(DeWolf p.8, [0090]). The tracking of exchange of ownership rights can be
applied to the sale of a vehicle (DeWolf p.10, [0101]).
8. DeWolf discloses that “the creator or owner of the initial vehicle asset
record, the manufacturer, would grant various access privileges to particular asset
records to various individuals and organizations depending on their ownership
status…” (DeWolf [0110]).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claimed invention is unpatentable if 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.” KSR Int’l v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007); Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14, 148 USPQ 459, 466 (1966).
In Graham, the Court held that that the obviousness analysis is bottomed on
several basic factual inquiries: “[(1)] the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; [(2)] differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be
ascertained; and [(3)] the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.” 383
U.S. at 17, 148 USPQ at 467. See also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at
1391.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013