Ex Parte Ramsey Catan - Page 19

                Appeal 2007-0820                                                                               
                Application 09/734,808                                                                         
           1    directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can               
           2    take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary                    
           3    skill in the art would employ.”  127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.                         
           4          The claim is to a structure already known in the prior art that is altered               
           5    by the mere substitution of one known element for another element known                        
           6    in the field for the same function.  The facts themselves show that there is no                
           7    difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art but for the                    
           8    combination itself.  “[T]he mere existence of differences between the prior                    
           9    art and an invention does not establish the invention's nonobviousness.  The                   
          10    gap between the prior art and respondent's system is simply not so great as to                 
          11    render the system nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art.”  Dann v.                   
          12    Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976) (holding that                            
          13    claims directed to a machine system for automatic record keeping of bank                       
          14    checks and deposits were obvious in view of the use of data processing                         
          15    equipment and computer programs in the banking industry at the time of the                     
          16    invention in combination with a prior art automatic data processing system                     
          17    using a programmed digital computer for use in a large business                                
          18    organization).  Appellant has presented no evidence that combining the                         
          19    Nakano device with the Harada bioauthentication means would have                               
          20    required anything more from one of ordinary skill in the art than to                           
          21    substitute one authentication means for a more advanced one.  Accordingly,                     
          22    we hold that the subject matter of claim 5 would have been obvious to one of                   
          23    ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of Nakano and Harada.                            
          24          Nonetheless, our holding is further buttressed by the teaching in                        
          25    Dethoff of the substitutability of a voice print authentication for a PIN                      
          26    authentication (FF 10).  In particular, Dethloff teaches that it was known in                  

                                                      19                                                       

Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013