Appeal No. 95-0143 Application 07/865,849 SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). In addition, the Federal Circuit reasons in Para-Ordnance Mfg v. SGS Importers International, 73 F.3d at 1087-88, 37 USPQ2d at 1239-40, that for the determination of obviousness, the court must answer whether one of ordinary skill in the art who sets to solve the problem, and who had before him in his workshop the prior art, would have been reasonably expected to use the solution that is claimed by the Appellants. To answer this question, we first must determine what the prior art places before the skilled artisan in his workshop. Pogue teaches in column 1, lines 39-57, that one of the objectives of the invention is a high level of security even if all communications can be monitored and all aspects of the design are known. Pogue also teaches that another objective of their invention is that one key may be used with an unlimited number of locks. Pogue teaches that each unit can operate at very low power and complete the normal functions in a fraction of a second. 9Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007