Appeal No. 95-0143
Application 07/865,849
SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). In addition, the
Federal Circuit reasons in Para-Ordnance Mfg v. SGS Importers
International, 73 F.3d at 1087-88, 37 USPQ2d at 1239-40, that for
the determination of obviousness, the court must answer whether
one of ordinary skill in the art who sets to solve the problem,
and who had before him in his workshop the prior art, would have
been reasonably expected to use the solution that is claimed by
the Appellants.
To answer this question, we first must determine what the
prior art places before the skilled artisan in his workshop.
Pogue teaches in column 1, lines 39-57, that one of the
objectives of the invention is a high level of security even if
all communications can be monitored and all aspects of the design
are known. Pogue also teaches that another objective of their
invention is that one key may be used with an unlimited number of
locks. Pogue teaches that each unit can operate at very low
power and complete the normal functions in a fraction of a
second.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007