Appeal 2007-1658
Application 09/838,428
first and second sets of text data, respectively, and forming still images
therefrom, which is suggested by both Loui and Bergen.
Appellants further contend (Br. 17-19) that the Examiner has failed to
point to a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to combine
and/or modify Loui and Bergen. The Supreme Court recently held that in
analyzing the obviousness of combining elements, a court need not find
specific teachings, but rather may consider "the background knowledge
possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art" and "the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."
See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385,
1396 (2007). Since Loui and Bergen describe such similar systems, it would
have been obvious to the skilled artisan to use steps/elements from one for
the other.
Appellants contend (Br. 21-23) that the Examiner used impermissible
hindsight in combining Loui and Bergen because each presented a complete
solution to the problem they faced, and, thus, the skilled artisan would not
have been motivated to combine/modify them. However, Bergen has not
been used to modify Loui, but rather reinforces the teachings and
suggestions made by Loui. Accordingly, the Examiner has not used
impermissible hindsight. Since we have found that Loui and Bergen suggest
extracting two video frames associated with first and second sets of text
data, respectively, and forming still images therefrom, we will sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15, and dependent claims 3 through
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013