Appeal 2007-2070
Application 10/123,457
1 different one. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable
2 variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 1740.
3 “For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device,
4 and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
5 similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
6 application is beyond his or her skill.” Id.
7 “Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of
8 endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason
9 for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 1742.
10 Automation of a Known Process
11 It is generally obvious to automate a known manual procedure or mechanical
12 device. Our reviewing court stated in Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price
13 Inc., 485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
14 found it obvious to combine an old electromechanical device with electronic
15 circuitry “to update it using modern electronic components in order to gain the
16 commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as decreased size,
17 increased reliability, simplified operation, and reduced cost. . . . The combination
18 is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention . . . using newer technology that is
19 commonly available and understood in the art.” Id. at 1163.
20 ANALYSIS
21 Claims 1-20, 22-42, 45-48, and 51-64 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
22 anticipated by Treyz.
23 The Appellants argue these claims as a group.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013