Appeal 2006-3408
Application 10/885,524
object such as a user’s belt loop or key chain. (Titterton, col. 4, ll. 28-32
and 46-56).
3. Montano teaches a message board 20 joined by a message board
attachment ring 22 to a holder head 10, which is adapted to be securely
attached to a key-operated door lock (Montano, col. 1, ll. 19-26, col. 2,
ll. 34-41).
4. Fields teaches a door knob and lock assembly with a LED visible from
the exterior of the door to provide a flashing display actuated by locking
the lock assembly (Fields, col. 1, l. 60 – col. 2, l. 20).
5. De Forrest discloses a status indicator for a door lock in which two LEDs
are alternately lit to show either a locked or unlocked state of the lock to
which the status indicator is attached (De Forrest, col. 5, ll. 23-44).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“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 question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of
skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013