Appeal 2007-0474
Application 10/692,885
1 its patentability. For the same reason, if a
2 technique has been used to improve one device,
3 and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
4 recognize that it would improve similar devices in
5 the same way, using the technique is obvious
6 unless its actual application is beyond his or her
7 skill.
8 Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The operative question in this “functional
9 approach” is thus “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use
10 of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id.
11 A disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the
12 claim unpatentable under 35 US.C. § 103, for “anticipation is the epitome of
13 obviousness.” Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1529, 220 USPQ 1021, 1025
14 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ
15 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ
16 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
17
18 ANALYSIS
19 Appellants separately argue claims 1 and 30. For claims 2-29,
20 Appellants merely repeat the same argument made for claim 1. We will
21 therefore treat claims 2-29 as standing or falling with claim 1. For claims
22 31-37, Appellants merely repeat the same argument made for claim 30. We
23 will therefore treat claims 31-37 as standing or falling with claim 30. See 37
24 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See also In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590,
25 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
26 Appellants have not addressed the level of ordinary skill in the
27 pertinent art of electronic input devices. Accordingly, we will consider
28 Knutson, Bailey, Ku, Thuraisingham, Watters, and Saxe as representative of
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013