Appeal No. 2000-2148 Page 5
Application No. 08/935,704
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir.
1984)). “[E]vidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to
combine may flow from the prior art references themselves, the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases,
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 references flows from the
references themselves. Hocker’s invention “allows [a] user to
rapidly determine the interrelatedness of icons on graphical user
interfaces.” Abs., ll. 1-2. More specifically, “[u]pon
selection of an icon, . . . all other icons to which the selected
icon may be related are graphically highlighted.” Id. at ll. 2-
5. Although the primary reference discloses that embodiments of
such graphical highlights “might include icon: brightness,
outlining, font, shading, color, size, shape, and/or animation,”
col. 4, 42-43 (emphasis added), the disclosure is not exclusive.
To the contrary, Hocker invites “alternative embodiments,”
col. 6, l. 1, including “other graphical means.” Col. 3, l. 29.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007