Appeal 2007-2343
Application 09/928,856
1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981).
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,
1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
Leapfrog Enter., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161,
82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007)). “One of the ways in
which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there
existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an
obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
ANALYSIS
1. Rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 8, 13-19, 23, 24, 29-34, and 37 over
Puskala and Martin
Appellants mainly argue that Martin’s “placeholder tokens” are not
taught nor suggested to be replaced with “token text” entered by the user or
edited by the user (Br. 10; Reply Br. 3-6). Appellants rely on paragraphs
0066-0070 of Martin and assert that the “placeholder tokens” are either
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013