Appeal 2007-0434
Application 10/041,207
(Fed. Cir. 1998)). Of course, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit "has previously found a proposed modification inappropriate for an
obviousness inquiry when the modification rendered the prior art reference
inoperable for its intended purpose." In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.12,
23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 n.12 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d
900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
B. ANALYSIS
Here, the Appellants admit that handling an individual image was
known in the art; "[f]or example, new parents may share a digital
photograph or image of their newborn baby with friends and relatives. . . ."
(Specification 1.) Squilla also discloses the handling of individual images.
For example, "the images may be selected individually for categorization."
(Col. 8, ll. 44-45 (emphasis added).) Once categorized, moreover, the
reference's computer program "retriev[es] at least one image from a plurality
of images that have been previously categorized. . . ." (Col. 1, ll. 63-64
(emphasis added).)
For its part, Hobbes discloses the use of "the Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI); Uniform Resource Locator (URL); or Uniform Resource
Name (URN) to indicate the network resource to which a method is to be
applied. A network resource is a network data object or service that can be
identified by a URI, URL or URN." (Col. 14, ll. 26-31.) Those skilled in
the art would have known, moreover, that URLs and URIs uniquely identify
that object or service.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013