Appeal No. 2003-1729 Page 8
Application No. 09/229,733
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the
claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781,
783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, the examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Ohashi,
Lewis, Barlow, or Wu cures the aforementioned deficiency of Murphy. Absent a
teaching or suggestion of a process that receives a profile token in response to
successful authentication of a user, we are unpersuaded of a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 11,
13, 16, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, and 30.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007