Appeal 2007-1554
Application 10/844,387
Ginter discloses using the third party go-between to “provide a digital time
stamp service to certify that a certain version of a certain document existed and
was delivered to it at a certain day and time” (Ginter, col. 9, ll. 50-55).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A claimed invention is not patentable if the subject matter of the claimed
invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. 35
U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d
1385, 1396 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459,
467 (1966).
Facts relevant to a determination of obviousness include (1) the scope and
content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed invention and the
prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art and (4) any relevant objective evidence of
obviousness or non-obviousness. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1389,
Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18, 149 USPQ at 467.
A person having ordinary skill in the art uses known elements and process
steps for their intended purpose. Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage
Co., 396 U.S. 57, 61-62, 163 USPQ 673, 674-75 (1969) (radiant-heat burner used
for its intended purpose in combination with a spreader and a tamper and screed);
Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 452-53 (1976) (the
involved patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same
function it had been known to perform); Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U.S. 187, 195 (1876)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013