Appeal 2006-3135
Application 09/802,638
unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.3d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). Furthermore, “‘there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness’ . . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.
Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Although we have concluded that the Examiner has fully met the
above noted case law requirements for obviousness within 35 U.S.C. § 103,
it appears to us that the actual teachings of the applied prior art are more
compelling of a rationale to combine the respective teachings than the
parties before us appear to have realized. As such, we present a more
extensive and reordered analysis of Breslauer consistent with the Examiner’s
views, a reference about which Appellant’s Brief and Reply Brief have little
to say. With these general considerations in mind, we further note that each
of independent claims 1, 2, and 7 in some manner relate to Web pages or
Web sites, whereas independent claim 12 has no such limitation.
Turning first to Matthews, this interactive TV system is consistent
with the disclosed and claimed invention. The Background discussion at
column 1, lines 15 through 17 and 45 through 47 are noteworthy with
respect to their suggestibility of utilizing this ITV system of Matthews in a
Web-based environment. This capability is further suggested by the lengthy
discussion at column 3, lines 4 through 31 with the more specific teaching at
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013