Appeal No. 1998-2602
Application 08/303,158
1577, 1583, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and In re
Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir.
1988)) as Appellant would apparently have us believe. Rather,
the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper to take
into account not only the specific teachings of the references
but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d
825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Here, both Ushiki and
Von Kohorn show the means and methods of transmitting additional
information from the storage units (i.e., advertisements) to each
computer terminal in response to a request. In Ushiki, the
accounting part of the system merely measures the amount of such
transmission for the purposes of fee calculation, whereas in Von
Kohorn, means and method for verifying the viewing of the
transmitted advertisement are shown. We agree with the Examiner
that it would have been obvious for an artisan to utilize the
verifying teachings of Von Kohorn in Ushiki to assess the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007