Appeal 2007-1235
Application 09/748,125
would understand that Yang’s error notification process is useful wherever
errors are detected and improvements in the system are sought.
Having found Appellants’ arguments on the relevance of Puckett
unpersuasive, we find that Appellants have not shown error in the prima
facie case of obviousness. The claimed steps are disclosed in the prior art.
We find each step claimed performs as one of ordinary skill in the art would
expect it to perform from reading the cited prior art. Each performs a known
function and that function is spelled out in the prior art. The steps claimed do
no more than what one would expect if the steps described in Ricker,
Puckett and Yang were to be combined. “The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct.
1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). In that regard, Appellants have
not shown that the claimed method yields an unexpected result.
E. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims over the prior art.
24
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013