Appeal 2007-1271
Application 10/005,583
Glaverbel Societe Anonyme v. Northlake Mktg. & Supply, 45 F.3d 1550,
1554, 33 USPQ2d 1496, 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal citations omitted).
For each of issues 1-5, we make the following findings of fact with
respect to the Kuwata reference:
1. We find Kuwata discloses receiving a scan request from a user
browser (See Analysis infra).
2. We find Appellant has admitted in the Reply Brief (p. 3, ¶ 2, ll.
4-5) that Kuwata discloses receiving selections made with a
user browser (See Analysis infra).
3. We find Kuwata does not disclose uploading a control screen to
a user browser (See Analysis infra).
4. We find Kuwata does not disclose uploading an application to a
user browser (See Analysis infra).
5. We find Kuwata discloses a scanning device that performs the
functions of receiving, uploading, and scanning (See Analysis
infra).
With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejections, we note that
the ultimate issue of obviousness is a matter of law that turns on four
underlying factual determinations: (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) the level of ordinary skill in the art, (3) the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art, and (4) objective indicia of
nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148
USPQ 459, 467 (1966), as reaffirmed by KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013