Appeal 2007-0483
Application 10/087,032
taught by Choi therefore fall within the scope of the input pins as set forth in
claim 18.
Moreover, a person having ordinary skill in the art uses known
elements for their intended purpose. Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v.
Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969) (radiant-heat burner used for its
intended purpose in combination with a spreader and a tamper and screed).
“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the
same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one
would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-96
(2007) (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
Here, the references demonstrate (e.g., Choi ¶ 48) that the artisan was
capable of fashioning connectors for audio (and power) signals in different
arrangements depending on whatever signals were desired for a particular
application. Appellants have provided no evidence tending to show that
producing a 4-pin plug as claimed was “uniquely challenging or difficult for
one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
We are thus not persuaded of error in the rejection of any claim on
appeal. The rejection of claims 12-19 is sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 12-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013