Ex Parte 5832461 et al - Page 21



              Appeal No. 2005-2642                                                                                            
              Reexamination Control No. 90/005,841                                                                            

              to service the accounts with a data processor in order to obtain the speed and accuracy                         
              offered by automated (as opposed to manual) processing.  Appellant’s argument that                              
              Musmanno’s software is “totally inapplicable to the issue at hand: the adjustment and                           
              management of inflation-indexed accounts,” Brief at 11, is unconvincing because the                             
              examiner is not proposing to use Musmanno’s disclosed software to service                                       
              Mukherjee’s inflation-indexed accounts.  “Claims may be obvious in view of a                                    
              combination of references, even if the features of one reference cannot be substituted                          
              physically into the structure of the other reference.”  Orthopedic Equip. Co, Inc.  v.                          
              United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013, 217 USPQ 193, 200 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re                            
              Anderson, 391 F.2d 953, 958, 157 USPQ 277, 281 (CCPA 1968)).  Instead, what                                     
              matters in the § 103 nonobviousness determination is whether a person of ordinary skill                         
              in the art, having all of the teachings of the references before him, is able to produce the                    
              structure defined by the claim.  Orthopedic Equip., 702 F.2d at 1013, 217 USPQ2d at                             
              200 (citing In re Twomey, 218 F.2d 593, 596, 104 USPQ 273, 275 (CCPA 1955)).  On                                
              this point, appellant argues:                                                                                   
                             The complexity of the data processing required for carrying out the                              
                      claimed invention is evident in the four examples of data processing                                    
                      systems described in the subject patent specification (see Figures 2-5),                                
                      along with the numerous and varied permutations of these four systems                                   
                      that they enable and that would be evident to those of skill in light thereof,                          
                      which provide those of skill with the basic understanding to [sic] necessary                            
                      to overcome the problems that faced the Finnish system and that                                         
                      apparently led to the “Sudden Death” of that system.                                                    
              Brief at 12.  This argument fails for several reasons, the first of which is that, as noted                     
              above, Mukherjee attributes the “[s]udden death” of the Finnish system of providing                             
                                                             21                                                               





Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007