Appeal 2007-1340
Application 09/996,125
predictable solution to the design need of latency (FF 3, 10). The selected
document that is loaded may be a cached document. (FF 9, 13.)
There are a finite number of identified, predictable ways to control the
selection and loading of documents. In particular, the prior art discloses two
options for controlling the selection of documents: (1) giving the user
control over selection of the document (FF 6-9, 15); and (2) giving the
computer control over selection of the document (FF 7, 13). The prior art
also discloses two options for controlling the loading of documents: (1)
giving the user control over loading the document (FF 6-9, 15); and (2)
giving the computer control over loading the document (FF 7, 13).
Appellants have not pointed to any other option for controlling the selection
and loading of a document and we know of no other option.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to
pursue the known options of giving the user control over selecting and
loading documents when selecting and loading portions of a cached
document. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common
sense," KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397, to give the user (rather
than the computer program) control over digitally pointing to selected
portions of a cached Web page and loading only those designated portions.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known
potential solutions to the problem of latency with a reasonable expectation of
success. Appellants have presented no evidence that giving the user (rather
than the computer program) control over selection and loading of portions of
a cached document "was uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art," Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162, 82 USPQ2d at 1692,
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013