Appeal No. 2006-2106
Application No. 09/837,632
led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See also In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed.
Cir. 1998). Such evidence is required in order to establish a prima facie case. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cofer,
354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966). However, the
motivation, suggestion or teaching may come explicitly from
statements in the prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary
skill in the art, or, in some cases the nature of the problem to
be solved. See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d
1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
A review of Miksovsky confirms that the reference relates to
a dynamic error messaging system (abstract) wherein updated error
messages corresponding to a predetermined or numbered error is
outputted (col. 5, lines 56-67). According to Miksovsky, an
updated error message for that error is searched (col. 6, lines
6-11) and formatted prior to displaying to the user (col. 6,
lines 64-67).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007