Appeal No. 2006-0430 Page 8 Application No. 09/859,425 content elements, some of which are graphical elements and others of which are textual elements. 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)). Of course, "'[e]very . . . reference relies to some extent upon knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement that [which is] disclosed. . . .'" In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 424 (CCPA 1973)). Those persons "must be presumed to know something" about the art "apart from what the references disclose." In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962). Here, Tso's "invention may . . . be used for dynamic translation of data, such as Web pages, to a user's native language (determined by user preference or automatically by the physical location of network client 12 or transcoding server 34).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007