Appeal 2007-1554
Application 10/844,387
allow same to be used as a graphic in web pages (Br. 14). Again common sense
dictates that to insure that contents are not to be tampered with, a .GIF or graphic
file is used to present the data in a manner which cannot be altered. Id.
Finally, we agree with the Examiner that claims 46 and 50 recite nothing
more than what a person with ordinary skill in the art person would have known as
industry standards and the common sense results of using such known
programming languages, e.g., if data is not redacted by XSLT, then it is made
opaque to the viewer.
Motivation to Combine
Appellants argue “there is no proper motivation to modify the teachings of
ROBINSON with the teachings of GINTER or any other document to obtain the
combination recited in claim 34” (Br. 8). To the extent Appellants argue that an
explicit motivation, suggestion, or teaching in the art, the argument has been
foreclosed by KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385
(2007). In KSR, the Court characterized the teaching, suggestion, motivation test
as a “helpful insight” but found that when it is rigidly applied, it is incompatible
with the Court’s precedents. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The
holding in KSR makes clear that there is no longer, if it ever was, a rigid
requirement for finding a reason to combine teachings of the prior art.
Helpful insights, however, need not become rigid and
mandatory formulas; and when it is so applied, the TSM
test is incompatible with our precedents. The obviousness
analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception
of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by
18
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013