Appeal No. 2004-0870 Page 11
Application No. 09/477,419
2. Obviousness Determination
The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations
including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258
F.3d 1379, 1383, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d
994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34
USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Furthermore, "[n]on-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references." In re Merck, 800 F.2d, 1091, 1097, 231
USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981)). "'Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.'" Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v.
Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1025, 226 USPQ 881, 886-87 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881).
Here, Green discloses that "[i]n multitasking operating systems, an end user may
execute several application programs simultaneously." Col. 1, ll. 20-21. "[E]ach of the
application programs is associated with a respective window and is displayed on a
portion of the user's display unit." Id. at ll. 25-27. For example, Figure 3 of the
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007