Appeal 2007-1302
Application 09/818,003
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 (1996). 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., No.
04-1350, slip op at 14 (U.S., Apr. 30, 2007)(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
As noted earlier, claim 1 is representative of the subject matter of
independent claims 1 and 45 on appeal. Since we consider the Examiner’s
views in the statement of rejection of claim 1 at pages 5 and 6 of the Answer
and of claim 45 at pages 19 and 20 of the Answer as essentially complying
with the above precedent, we sustain the rejection of representative
independent claim 1on appeal for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Answer, including those responsive remarks at pages 28 through 31 of
the Answer, as slightly modified here. It appears to us both the Examiner
and Appellant have not appreciated one significant teaching in Eldridge.
Because Neukermans plainly scans a document, it contains actual
document data. As to Eldridge, we do not agree with Appellant’s urging at
page 9 of the principal Brief on appeal that this reference does not contain
actual document data. Figure 3B of Eldridge relates to the data components
of his token with the focus in figure 3B being that it relates to his token for a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013