Appeal 2007-0257
Application 10/047,123
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 v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d
1385 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329,
1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9, 10, 21,
22, 33, 34, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 paragraph 2 for being
indefinite, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which applicant regards as the invention. Considering the standard
quoted above in the Bancorp case, and the findings of the term’s definition
in the specification and frequent use in the technology, (Findings of Fact, #1
to #5), we conclude that the term “in near real time” has been sufficiently
defined in the specification to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to discern
its meaning. The term should be considered for examination purposes
consistent with the Appellant’s definition in the specification. See generally
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Appellant contends that Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 to 50
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Reviewing the Findings of Fact cited above, we
find that the references cited by the Examiner fail to establish in the prior art
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013