Appeal No. 2001-1626
Application No. 09/007,622
“a first mode of operation,” deemed to correspond to scheduler 10 receiving signals
from content providers. Thus, while all the features of claim 19 might be found in the
prior art applied, suggestion for the proposed combination is not evident from the prior
art.
The examiner can satisfy the burden of showing obviousness over a combination
of references “only by showing some objective teaching in the prior art or that
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would lead that
individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1265, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Particular findings must be
made with respect to why the skilled artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed
invention, would have selected components for combination in the manner claimed. In
re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1371, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In the
instant case, we conclude that the record fails to establish prima facie obviousness for
the subject matter of any of independent claims 1, 12, and 19.
The Teng reference, applied against dependent claims 9 and 20 (Answer at 14-
15), does not remedy the deficiencies of Greenwood and Miller. We thus do not
sustain the rejection of any of the claims on appeal.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007