Ex Parte Seshadri et al - Page 10

                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