Obviousness

Based on the provided prior art and the state of technology as of the patent's priority date of June 20, 1995, an analysis of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 indicates that the independent claims of US patent 7,765,126 would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA).

A PHOSITA at that time would have possessed a working knowledge of computer networking, including the protocols and architecture of the burgeoning World Wide Web (WWW), familiarity with database systems, and an understanding of common data input methods, such as barcode scanning for product identification.

The core concept of the '126 patent is the use of a pre-existing product identifier (like a UPC) to look up a corresponding network address (URL) in a remote database, thereby linking a physical object to an online resource. The prior art, when combined, suggests this solution was an obvious advancement.

Obviousness Combinations

1. Combination of Rathus ('534) with the known architecture of the World Wide Web

• Rathus (US 6,164,534 A): Teaches a system for linking printed media to electronic data by scanning a barcode. Crucially, Rathus explicitly states that the associated data file could be retrieved from a local source (like a CD-ROM) or a "remote server." This establishes the core concept of using a barcode scan to trigger access to data over a network.
• Common Knowledge of the WWW (as of mid-1995): By 1995, the WWW was a rapidly expanding public network. The use of Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) as the standard addressing scheme to locate and retrieve resources from remote web servers was fundamental. Web browsers like Netscape Navigator were becoming widely available, and the problem of long, difficult-to-type URLs was a known usability issue, as acknowledged in the '126 patent's background section.
• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, aware of the problem of cumbersome URL entry, would be motivated to find a more user-friendly method for accessing web resources. Seeing the Rathus patent's disclosure of using a barcode to access a "remote server," the PHOSITA would have found it obvious to apply this method to the most prominent and standardized network of remote servers in existence: the World Wide Web.
  • The Obvious Step: The logical and predictable implementation of Rathus's system in the context of the WWW would be to have the "remote server" be a web server and the "electronic data" be a web page. The unique identifier for that web page would be its URL. The intermediate step—using the scanned barcode as an index to a database that maps the code to the corresponding URL—is a standard and obvious method for implementing such a lookup service. Therefore, combining Rathus's general teaching with the specific, well-known architecture of the WWW renders the invention of the '126 patent obvious.

2. Combination of AT&T (EP 0 744 856 A3) with the known architecture of the World Wide Web

• AT&T ('856): Discloses a nearly complete system. It teaches scanning a product identifier (like a UPC), sending that identifier to a remote service with a database, mapping the identifier to a "communication address," and using that address to establish a connection.
• Common Knowledge of the WWW (as of mid-1995): As stated above, the URL was the standard for addressing informational resources on computer networks.
• Motivation to Combine: The AT&T application provides a blueprint for using product codes to initiate network connections. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to adapt this system for use with the WWW to allow consumers to easily access product information online. The term "communication address" in the AT&T filing is a general term. In the context of accessing information on a remote computer over the Internet in 1995, the most common, logical, and effective type of "communication address" was a URL. Substituting a URL for the more generic "communication address" is not an inventive step but rather an obvious implementation choice to apply the AT&T system to the dominant information network of the era. This combination makes all the steps of independent claim 1 obvious.

Analysis of Dependent Claims

The dependent claims of the '126 patent add limitations that were also either known or obvious at the time.

• Claim 5 (using a portion of a UPC): A UPC is inherently divisible into a manufacturer code and a product code. The idea of using only the manufacturer portion to find a manufacturer's general website (as opposed to a specific product page) would have been an obvious and desirable feature. This is further supported by the teachings of the Perkowski '979 patent, which, while filed later, describes this exact functionality, indicating it was a known variation.
• Claims 2, 3, 8, 12 (user selection via hypertext link): If the database lookup returned one or more URLs, the standard and universal method for presenting these to a user within a web browser in 1995 was as a selectable hypertext link. This is a fundamental feature of HTML and web browsers, not an invention.
• Claims 4, 9, 13 (automatic connection): The choice between presenting a link for a user to click and automatically redirecting the browser to the retrieved URL is a simple programming design choice. Both were well-understood capabilities. The motivation to automatically connect would be to further streamline the user experience, which is an obvious goal.

In conclusion, the core elements of the '126 patent—scanning a code, network transmission, remote database lookup, and using the resulting address for connection—were taught by the prior art. The specific application of this process to the World Wide Web using URLs and barcodes was an obvious step for a person of ordinary skill in the art in 1995, who was motivated by the known problem of simplifying access to the growing number of online resources.