Appeal No. 2000-2091
Application 08/441,024
or by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill
in the art that would have led that individual to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Furthermore, to reach a
conclusion of obviousness under § 103, the examiner must also
produce factual basis supported by teaching in a prior art
reference or shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable
demonstration, consistent with the holding in Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Our reviewing court requires
this evidence in order to establish a prima facie case. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-
72 (CCPA 1966).
Initially, we note that a review of Kobayashi compels us
to agree with Appellant’s characterization of the reference
that the storing, writing, confirming and transferring of data
are performed at the server side, not at the client side. As
shown in Figures 1 and 2, Kobayashi provides rollback journal
13 for storing intermediate results of transaction processing
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007