Appeal No. 2000-2210
Application No. 09/002,828
After careful review of the applied prior art references in
light of the arguments of record, we are in agreement with the
Examiner’s analysis and position as stated in the Answer. It is
apparent to us from the line of reasoning expressed in the Answer
that the Examiner is not suggesting the bodily incorporation of
Harper’s screen overlay feature into the interactive system of
Hellhake. Rather, it is the advantages described in Harper of
interactive enhancement capability attendant to the use of
trigger points which call up graphical interfaces and screen
overlays that is being relied upon as a suggestion for the
proposed combination. “The test for obviousness is not whether
the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the
test is what the combined teachings of those references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See
also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968, 179 USPQ 224,
226 (CCPA 1973).2 We would also point out that Hellhake also
2 We also disagree with Appellant’s assertion that Harper lacks a
communication “return path.” In the passage beginning at column 23, line 8 of
Harper, a “return path” for information from the subscribers to the operations
center is described.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007