Appeal No. 2006-0979
Application No. 08/818,185
a person of ordinary skill in the art. We note that to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness, the examiner must meet three basic criteria: Firstly,
there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references
themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in
the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings. In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355-57, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Secondly, there must be a reasonable expectation of success. Medchem
S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed. Cir.
2006); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 379
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Finally, the prior art references when combined must
teach or suggest all the claim limitations. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385
n. 9, 217 USPQ 401, 403 n. 9 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981,
985, 180 USPQ 580, 583 (CCPA 1974). (obviousness requires a suggestion
of all limitations in a claim).
We note that the relevant portion of instant claim 28 recites: “an
applet, said applet being used to retrieve an object reference for a naming
context object from a server apparatus” [claim 28, emphasis added]. We
note that Hamilton teaches that application program 510 may only be given
a logical name for the network server and, in order to find the network
server machine within which network server 570 resides, application
program 510 refers to network name server 540 to find the particular
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007