Appeal 2007-1271
Application 10/005,583
b. The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
teachings of Kuwata and Somashekar, since Kuwata teaches a server
that uploads an Administrator application to manage files, folders,
users, and scanned documents (see Kuwata, p. 3, ¶¶ 0047, 0053). The
Examiner further points to Somashekar’s teaching of an embedded
server that performs the functions of loading, installation, activation,
execution and removal of services and components (see Somashekar,
p.1, ¶ 0010). The Examiner proffers that Somashekar’s embedded
server could handle the functions of loading applications, enabling
and removing services (such as those given to an Administrator) if
incorporated into Kuwata’s electronic document system. The
Examiner further notes that Somashekar offers the advantages of an
embedded server that enables services to be maintained and
administered at a central location which simplifies the management of
devices (see Somashekar, p.1, ¶ 0008) (Answer 25-26).
With respect to issue 7, we find the problem proffered by the
Examiner is already solved by Kuwata’s server that functions as a scanner
(see Kuwata p. 1, ¶ 0008). We note that the U.S. Supreme Court recently
reaffirmed that “[a] factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion
caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of argument reliant upon ex
post reasoning.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d
at 1397. See also Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. at 36, 148 USPQ at
474. Nevertheless, in KSR the Supreme Court also qualified the issue of
hindsight by stating that “[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013