Appeal 2007-0762
Application 09/822,121
meaning.'" Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 75 USPQ2d 1321,
1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). The "ordinary
and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would
have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Id. at
1313, 75 USPQ2d at 1326.
With regard to the issue of whether it is obvious to use a more modern
technology in substitution for an older one, we take guidance from the recent
Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc v. Fisher Price, Inc. and Mattel, Inc.:
“Thus we bear in mind that the goal of the clam 25 device was to
allow a child to press a switch associated with a single letter in a word
and hear the sound of the letter as it is used in that word. …
Accommodating a prior art mechanical device that accomplishes that
goal to modern electronics would have been reasonably obvious to
one of ordinary skill in designing children’s learning devices.
Applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been
commonplace in recent years.” Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc v. Fisher
Price, Inc. and Mattel, Inc, --- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 1345333, C.A.Fed.
(Del.), May 09, 2007 (No. 06-1402.)
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 to 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Reviewing the findings of facts cited above, and
omitting contentions concerning the expression of the rejection which are
not appealable, we proceed as follows.
Appellants argue that the Baker reference has been dropped in the
cited rejections. (Br. 12, footnote). We do not find this supported in the
record, as the rejections quoted in the Brief and Answer clearly rely on the
Baker reference, inter alia.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013