Appeal 2007-2519
Application 10/616,208
STATEMENT OF LAW
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends
to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). To be nonobvious,
an improvement must be “more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.” Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
ANALYSIS
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 10
as being unpatentable over the teachings of Feyereisen in view of Amro.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that neither Feyereisen nor Amro teaches
returning the enlarged imaged data to its original size in response to the
cessation of user manipulation of a control (Br. 9, 11-12). Appellant further
contends that nothing in Feyereisen teaches or suggests changing the size of
the displayed data in response to any specific user action. Instead, Appellant
points out that all such data display changes in Feyereisen occur solely in
response to the current mode or phase of flight (Br. 9; see also Feyereisen
¶0062). Regarding the secondary Amro reference, Appellant notes that a
specific user action (e.g., tapping with a stylus on an indicated screen area)
is required to close the enlarged data entry window (Br. 12). Appellant
concludes the Examiner has impermissibly relied upon hindsight in
formulating the rejection (Br. 13).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that manually
adjusting flight indicators by the pilot is inherent in the teachings of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013