Appeal 2007-1317
Application 09/731,623
credentials are created during run-time. Therefore, the Examiner concludes
that Wu does not teach away from a second user authentication by its
teaching of a unified single user login (Answer 8-9).
With respect to the issue of hindsight, the Examiner asserts that an
artisan would have been motivated to modify Savill with the teachings of
Wu by virtue of the nature of the problem to be solved. Specifically, the
Examiner argues that Wu resolves the problem presented by Savill, i.e., how
to avoid the need to log off an existing user account prior to logging on to a
new user account (Savill, p. 1, l. 4).
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)).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013