Ex Parte Zimmer et al - Page 13

               Appeal 2007-1229                                                                             
               Application 10/325,333                                                                       

           1   illustrative of the “functional approach” to be taken in cases where the                     
           2   claimed invention is a prior art structure altered by substituting one element               
           3   in the structure for another known element. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82                       
           4   USPQ2d at 1391.  “The Court [in Adams] recognized that when a patent                         
           5   claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere                
           6   substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination                  
           7   must do more than yield a predictable result. 383 U.S., at 50-51.” KSR, 127                  
           8   S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.  Ultimately the Adams Court found the                      
           9   combination at issue not obvious to those skilled in the art because, although               
          10   the elements were known in the prior art, they worked together in an                         
          11   unexpected manner.                                                                           
          12          The [Adams] Court relied upon the corollary principle that when the                   
          13          prior art teaches away from combining certain known elements,                         
          14          discovery of a successful means of combining them is more likely to                   
          15          be nonobvious.  Id., at 51-52, 86 S.Ct. 708.  When Adams designed                     
          16          his battery, the prior art warned that risks were involved in using the               
          17          types of electrodes he employed.  The fact that the elements worked                   
          18          together in an unexpected and fruitful manner supported the                           
          19          conclusion that Adams’s design was not obvious to those skilled in the                
          20          art.                                                                                  
          21   KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (emphasis added).                                  
          22          The Federal Circuit recently concluded that it would have been                        
          23   obvious to combine (1) a mechanical device for actuating a phonograph to                     
          24   play back sounds associated with a letter in a word on a puzzle piece with                   
          25   (2) an electronic, processor-driven device capable of playing the sound                      
          26   associated with a first letter of a word in a book.  Leapfrog Ent., Inc. v.                  
          27   Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1690-91 (Fed.                       
          28   Cir. 2007) (“[a]ccommodating a prior art mechanical device that                              

                                                    13                                                      

Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013