Appeal No. 2002-0076 Page 7
Application No. 09/144,842
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. The question of obviousness is
"based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches
explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693,
1697(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). "'A
prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would . . . have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill
in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, Ford discloses "[a] shower speaker telephone system 10. . . ." Col. 4,
l. 24. "The shower telephone system has a base unit 150 (FIGS. 4 and 5) providing a
base." Col. 7, ll. 56-57. As aforementioned, the appellant admits, "Ford shows a
speaker in [its] base unit. . . . " (Reply Br. at 4.) Furthermore, the reference adds that
the "speaker 182 [is] mounted along the base housing for hands-free telephone
discussions from the base unit." Col. 8, ll. 52-53.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007