Appeal 2007-0897
Application 09/741,926
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.
Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner’s choice of references and explanation of combinability
of them, as brief as it is, is compelling of the obviousness of the subject
matter representative claim 1 on appeal. From the fact that both references
relied upon by the Examiner utilize the same well-known browser, the
Internet Explorer, it clearly would have been obvious for an artisan to have
utilized the teachings of Kulkarni to enhance those identified teachings in
Horvitz. Even the Examiner’s brief statement of obviousness, such that the
combination would have allowed the users to view the browser history in
chronological order is a powerful, compelling statement in and of itself. The
additional teachings we have outlined here from both references, coupled
with appellants’ own admissions of the state of the prior art we mentioned
earlier, enhance and otherwise add depth of the understanding to this brief
statement of combinability.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting all
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013