Appeal 2007-2978
Application 10/744,130
included transferring said catalog file to said marketplace site through a
catalog gateway using the catalog transfer protocol wherein each catalog file
segment is numbered and includes a flag denoting whether or not the catalog
segment is the last catalog file segment, as taught by Vittal, in order to
control catalog entries in a marketplace (Vittal: abstract, Answer 4).
7. Appellants argue that the references do not teach or suggest every feature of
the claimed invention, specifically step b) of claim 1.
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
of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459,
467 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 (“While the
sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the
[Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”) The Court in
Graham further noted that evidence of secondary considerations “might be utilized
to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter
sought to be patented.” 383 U.S. at 18, 148 USPQ at 467.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013