Appeal 2007-1271
Application 10/005,583
of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.”) (internal
citations omitted).
STATEMENT OF LAW (Obviousness)
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 (1966). “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review
of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). 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, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
ANALYSIS
Issue 1:
1. We decide the question of whether Kuwata discloses receiving a scan
request from a user browser.
a. Appellant argues that Kuwata does not disclose the recited step
of “receiving a scan request from a user browser” (Br. 8).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013