Ex Parte Mardirossian - Page 23

                Appeal 2007-0370                                                                                 
                Application 09/951,560                                                                           

           1                 When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design                           
           2                 incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,                     
           3                 either in the same field or a different one.  If a person of                        
           4                 ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103                          
           5                 likely bars its patentability.  For the same reason, if a technique                 
           6                 has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary                       
           7                 skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar                      
           8                 devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless                      
           9                 its actual application is beyond his or her skill.                                  
          10                                                                                                     
          11    Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.  The operative question in this “functional                      
          12    approach” is thus “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use                      
          13    of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id.                             
          14    The Supreme Court stated that there are “[t]hree cases decided after Graham                      
          15    [that] illustrate this doctrine.” Id. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. “In United                     
          16    States v. Adams, … [t]he Court recognized that when a patent claims a                            
          17    structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere                             
          18    substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination                      
          19    must do more than yield a predictable result.” Id. at 1739-40, 82 USPQ2d at                      
          20    1395. “Sakraida and Anderson’s-Black Rock are illustrative – a court must                        
          21    ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art                        
          22    elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d                       
          23    at 1396.                                                                                         
          24           It appears to me that this is such a case.                                                
          25           One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made                       
          26    would have known that GPS systems could be used to track speeds in cars,                         
          27    report those speeds to another wirelessly, and result in that other party                        
          28    imposing a fine for excessive speeds for predetermined period of time (see,                      
          29    e.g. American Car Rental, Inc. v. Commissioner of Consumer Protection,                           

                                                       23                                                        

Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013