Appeal 2007-0563
Application 10/001,940
1 therefore, the triangle overlays the rectangle at the points where
2 they intersect. Item buffer 208 shows how item numbers for
3 these two graphics objects are stored in the item buffer. At each
4 pixel location of the rectangle graphics object, item number 1 is
5 stored in the item buffer, and at each pixel location of the
6 triangle graphics object 206, item number 2 is stored in the item
7 buffer. Since the triangle is created last, item number 2 is
8 stored at all intersecting points of the triangle and rectangle. If
9 a user places the pointer device cursor over pixel location 214
10 and presses a selection button, the system references
11 corresponding location 212 in item buffer 208 and retrieves
12 item number 1, thus, immediately indicating that the user has
13 picked the rectangle graphics object. (Montgomery, col. 3, l.
14 64-col. 4, ll. 1-26).
15
16 D. Principles of Law
17 Applicants bear the burden to show that the Examiner has failed to
18 sufficiently demonstrate that there is a legal basis for combining Iwamura
19 and Montgomery. The obviousness determination is based on considering
20 (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the
21 claimed invention and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art;
22 and (4) any objective evidence of unobviousness, Graham v. John Deere
23 Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
24 The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.
25 Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) has cautioned against applying rigid rules
26 when considering obviousness, rules that would deny fact finders recourse to
27 common sense. For example, the Court cautioned against applying a rigid
28 testing, motivation or suggestion inquiry as follows:
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013