Appeal 2007-0958
Application 10/807,935
prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the
claimed subject matter and that of the prior art rests not on any individual
element or function but in the very combination itself; that is, in the
combination of Lemelson’s lock activating method with Stengel’s receiver
with battery saver.
Appellants further contend that “the prior art fails to provide a
motivation to combine the references in the manner claimed.” (Reply Br. 2).
For example, Appellants contend that “instead of saving power,
Lemelson expressly teaches that another suitable power source (i.e., line
current) should be sought instead of making attempts to conserve power.”
(Reply Br. 2).
We disagree with this interpretation of Lemelson. Lemelson discloses
that “[n]otation 22 refers to a suitable source of electrical energy such as a
battery or line current . . . .” (Lemelson, col. 4, ll. 47-48). Thus, contrary to
Appellants’ contention, Lemelson does not state that another suitable power
source should be sought instead of making attempts to conserve power.
Lemelson merely lists the type of electrical energy that can be used.
Where, as here, the application claims the combination of familiar
elements according to known methods, it is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d
at 1395. In that regard, it is our view that Appellants have provided no
evidence that combining Stengel’s “receiver with battery saver” with
Lemelson’s “lock activating system” yields an unexpected result or was
beyond the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art. Appellants’
Specification as well as Appellants’ arguments do not present any evidence
that including a method for conserving power while providing a signal to
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013