Appeal 2006-2018
Application 09/815,731
1 In addition, to display information obtained by the combined
2 teachings of the prior art, in a side-by-side fashion on a screen or page would
3 have been an obvious expedient to an artisan viewing the material. The
4 manner is which information already determined is displayed is within the
5 ordinary level of skill of an artisan, because an artisan would have been
6 aware that the information could be displayed either by printing it out or
7 displaying it on a screen.
8 Moreover, because the information has been obtained by the prior
9 art, an artisan would have been permitted to compare the information and
10 make determinations regarding it, even through there is no specific
11 disclosure of doing so, because claim 16 does not require comparing. We
12 are cognizant of the differences between claim 16 and the inventions
13 described in the prior art. However, these differences simply do not appear
14 in claim 16. In ex parte prosecution, there is no reason why Applicants
15 cannot amend the claim to distinguish over the prior art. As broadly drafted,
16 we find, for the reasons, supra, that claim 16 would have been suggested by
17 the prior art in a manner unintended by Applicants.
18 From all of the above, we conclude that the combined teachings and
19 suggestions of Hafner, Yamamoto and Salvo would have suggested the
20 language of claim 16. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 16, along with
21 claims 17 and 18 which fall with claim 16, is sustained.
22
23 CONCLUSION OF LAW
24 On the record before us, we find with respect to claims 1-18 that
25 Applicants have failed to sustain their burden of establishing that that
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013