Appeal 2007-1245
Application 09/950,253
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
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 ordinary skill in the art
would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82
USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78
USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner's rejection essentially
finds that Kuwata teaches every claimed feature except for using the browser
to photocopy a document. The Examiner cites APA as teaching that it is
known in the art to access and use a photocopier from a host computing
device. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kuwata to use
the browser to photocopy a document to allow remote users to photocopy
documents (Answer 5-6, 12-13).
Appellant argues that Kuwata does not teach a photocopying device
that receives a request or photocopying selections from a user browser as
claimed. Although Appellant acknowledges that Kuwata’s server could
receive such a request, the photocopier does not receive this request (Br. 13-
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013