Appeal 2007-0025 Page 13
Application 09/792,151
(Br. 16-18).
4. Freeman discloses a chip card that stores an advertisement and associated
electronic money rebate which a consumer may take to a store to make a purchase.
(Freeman, col. 15, ll. 40-53). Freeman also discloses that a consumer may make a
concomitant purchase of a product associated with the advertising information
stored on the chip. (Freeman, col. 19, ll. 48-50).
C. Principles of Law
1. What a reference teaches is a question of fact. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison
Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1579 n.42, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1606 n.42 (Fed.Cir. 1987).
2. “Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the
subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and (3) the level
of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459,
467 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 (“While the
sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the
[Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”) The Court in
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013