Appeal 2006-2594
Application 10/034,394
elements and automatically replacing each detected graphical element within
the selected markup language source portion with one of a plurality of
placeholders having labels corresponding to a set of buttons. . . ." Giving the
representative claims the broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations
require a controller that scans a document for tags associated with graphical
images and replaces each graphical image with a placeholder having a label
corresponding to a button.
B. 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 USPQ2d
1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d
1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'"
In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976)).
Here, as mentioned regarding the prior issue, we have found that the
combination of Bickmore and Patil would have suggested replacing each
graphical image with a placeholder having a label corresponding to a button.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013