Appeal No. 2005-2184 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/457,728
The examiner has rejected claims 1 to 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Göken in view of Mackintosh. We initially note that the test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981). Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper to take into account not only
the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the
art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
In the examiner’s view Göken describes the invention as recited in claim 1 except
that Göken does not describe an Internet interface. The examiner relies on Mackintosh
for describing a receiver configured to receive audio program segments over the
Internet from a broadcast service provider comprising an Internet interface. The
examiner concludes:
. . . it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention was made to use
Mackintosh’s receiver in Göken’s invention in order to
improve and provide the use of an analog and/or digital radio
broadcast transmission system via Internet. [answer at page
4].
We will not sustain this rejection. When it is necessary to select elements of
various teachings in order to form the claimed invention, we ascertain whether there
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007