Appeal No. 1997-1383
Application No. 08/217,392
references, as a whole, would lead one of ordinary skill in
the art to combine the advantages of one system with the
advantages of another. In this case, and without the
knowledge of Appellants’ disclosure, it would have been
obvious to view the stacks of pages in Nielsen and the stacks
of pages in Levine and combine the advantages of each into one
system. For example, Nielsen teaches the use of a request
area to access a page anywhere in the stack (e.g. Figures 2.4
and 2.6, and the related text in the last paragraph of
page 21). Thus, it would have been obvious to incorporate
this selection process into the stacks of Levine, or vice-
versa, use Levine’s stacks as the pages in Nielsen.
The ultimate determination of whether an invention is or
is not obvious is a legal conclusion based on underlying
factual inquiries including: (1) the scope and content of the
prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the prior art;
(3) the differences between the claimed invention and the
prior art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. See
Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18, 148 USPQ at 467; Miles Labs, Inc.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007