Appeal No. 2000-1515 Page 5
Application No. 08/687,195
from the nature of the problem to be solved. . . .” Dembiczak,
175 F.3d at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617 (citing Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v.
Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626,
1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Imports Int’l,
Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, a motivation to combine the Adachi and Fujisawa flows
from the references themselves. “[T]he screen of the display
unit 28 [of Adachi’s machine translator processor] consists, as
shown in FIG. 3, of . . . an original sentence display region 36,
and a translated sentence display region 38.” Col. 3, ll. 20-23.
Although the original and translated sentences are displayed
side-by-side in a “preferred embodiment,” col. 2, l. 30, the
primary reference invites “[v]arious modifications. . . .”
Col. 6, l. 41.
Fujisawa would have suggested such a modification.
Specifically, “[t]he image generating means outputs the
[translation] equivalent of the [original] word under the
[original] word.” Col. 13, ll. 32-33. The secondary reference
also discloses advantages flowing from displaying a translated
word under an original word. Specifically, “the present invention
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007