Appeal 2006-2085
Application 09/810,629
1 26. Brockman states “[t]elecommunications information can
1 be formatted on paper.” or ASCII, or HDML, etc. (Brockman, p. 13,
2
3 ¶ [0119]).
4
5 27. Gershman describes using Thin Client which provides improved
6 performance, enhanced security and reduced down time (Gershman,
7 col. 57, ll. 21-31).
8
9
10 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
11 On appeal, Appellants bear the burden of showing that the Examiner
12 has not established a legally sufficient basis for combining the teachings of
13 Gershman with those of Brockman. Appellants may sustain this burden by
14 showing that, where the Examiner relies on a combination of disclosures, the
15 Examiner failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that one having
16 ordinary skill in the art would have done what Appellants did. United States
17 v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 52, 148 USPQ 479, 483-84 (1966); In re Kahn, 441
18 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); DyStar
19 Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, Co., 464 F.3d
20 1356, 1360-61, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The mere fact that
21 all the claimed elements or steps appear in the prior art is not per se
22 sufficient to establish that it would have been obvious to combine those
23 elements. United States v. Adams, id; Smith Indus. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Vital
24 Signs, Inc., 183 F.3d 1347, 1356, 51 USPQ2d 1415, 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
25 ANALYSIS
26 We note at the outset that Appellants have not argued the teachings or
27 suggestions of Brockman in the Brief. Rather, Appellants have argued that
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013