Appeal 2007-0897
Application 09/741,926
figures interleave with the showing of a browsing history capability in figure
4 illustrating graphically the sequence or time sequence of file tabs such as
in a card index or a notebook file tab with the capability of adding new data
records associated with previously unvisited server cites. Again, like the
teaching at the bottom of column 1 we identified earlier, the teaching
identified by the Examiner at the bottom of column 6, lines 45-50, indicates
that the browsing history may be outputted in an inverse chronological order
such that the present page appears first then the pages previously visited
appear in inverse order in which they were visited. There is an additional
teaching beginning at line 50 of the ability of the system to order the
browsing history by adding a date and time stamp portion to each listed
entry.
Lastly, we treat Appellants’ position beginning at page 11 of the
principal Brief on appeal that there is no motivation to provide for
modifying Horvitz with the teaching of Kulkarni.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
(Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148
USPQ 459, 467 (1996). 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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013