Appeal No. 2005-2268 Page 15
Application No. 09/976,683
representative claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations include
switching between modes of display in response to detecting the approach of a
passerby.
2. Obviousness Determination
"Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re
Merck, 800 F.2d, 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)). "'Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.'" Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1025, 226 USPQ
881, 886-87 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881). Of
course, “[w]hen determining the patentability of a claimed invention which combines two
known elements, 'the question is whether there is something in the prior art as a whole
to suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination.'" In re
Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311-12, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462,
221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007