Ex Parte Millikan et al - Page 7

               Appeal 2007-0588                                                                             
               Application 10/202,349                                                                       

           1          While the sequence of these [Graham] questions might be                               
           2          reordered in any particular case, the factors continue to define                      
           3          the inquiry that controlls. If a court, or patent examiner,                           
           4          conducts this analysis and concludes the claimed subject matter                       
           5          was obvious, the claim is invalid under § 103.                                        
           6   KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391.  Further, the Court stated:                      
           7          To facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit. See                      
           8          In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 [78 USPQ2d 1329] (C.A. Fed.                             
           9          2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be                                 
          10          sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be                       
          11          some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to                         
          12          support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). As our                                 
          13          precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out                        
          14          precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the                      
          15          challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences                      
          16          and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art                         
          17          would employ.                                                                         
          18   KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.  Additionally, the Court                         
          19   stated:                                                                                      
          20          When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design                             
          21          incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,                       
          22          either in the same field or a different one. If a person of                           
          23          ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103                           
          24          likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique                    
          25          has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary                         
          26          skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar                        
          27          devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless                        
          28          its actual application is beyond his or her skill.                                    
          29   KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.                                                  
          30          As we have already found (and as argued by Appellants), the prior art                 
          31   Ho Yuen Lok reference describes the features of claims 1 and 19 except for                   
          32   saving a playlist on Ho Yuen Lok’s compressed audio CD.  We turn to Van                      
          33   Ryzin for two explicit teachings related to saving a playlist.                               

                                                     7                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013