Appeal 2007-1928
Application 10/163,282
relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24
USPQ2d at 1444; Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
The Court recently expounded on the obviousness determination in KSR, stating:
The question is not whether the combination was obvious
to the patentee but whether the combination was obvious
to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Under the
correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field
of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the
patent can provide a reason for combining the elements
in the manner claimed.
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
The Court further explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations
of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a
person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same
reason, if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill.
Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
ANALYSIS
Turning first to a construction of the claim language on appeal, we turn to
Appellant’s specification for guidance. An image is defined as including a
photograph, graphic, text, icon, or logo. Specification at 8:15. “Customized
image” is used to refer to an image that has been selected and/or modified in shape,
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013