Appeal 2007-2848
Application 10/765,106
non-intersecting lines versus intersecting lines). Whether the lines
intersect or not has no functional relationship with the substrate, and
this we do not consider the difference to distinguish the claimed
feature from that disclosed in Takeuchi.
“[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the
combination of elements of prior art is obvious” the relevant question
is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior
art elements according to their established functions.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 127 Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In the present
case, the prior art of Takeuchi describes a sighting device forming
four angle quadrants for the purpose of demarcating the target
directional line. The fact that the 45 degree angles do not cross in the
middle does not change the function of the sighting device fitted for
the butt end of a golf club. The appearance of the angles is a stylized
design choice that does not impart patentability to an otherwise
obvious invention.
Furthermore, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338,
220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where
the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a
recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device
having the claimed relative dimensions that would not perform
differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not
patentably distinct from the prior art device. In the present case,
extending the size of the graduations of the indicia and crossing them
in the middle would not make the claimed putter sighting device
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013