Appeal 2007-0924
Application 10/401,079
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). See also KSR,
127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 ("While the sequence of these
questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors
continue to define the inquiry that controls.")
"A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton." KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
When a work is available in one field of endeavor,
design incentives and other market forces can
prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
different one. If a person of ordinary skill can
implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely
bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a
technique has been used to improve one device,
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in
the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her
skill.
Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. We must ask whether the improvement is
more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions. Id.
We find ample reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been prompted to make the modification proposed by the Examiner. Both
Wolfe and Yannuzzi are directed to emergency medical alert information
devices worn by persons with medical conditions of concern (Wolfe, col. 1,
ll. 4-6, col. 2, ll. 7-31; Yannuzzi, col. 1, ll. 29-65). Both devices are
provided with a label (label 20b of Wolfe) or sheet (sheet 26 of Yannuzzi)
containing medical information. Wolfe's device comprises a container or
cover member 22b defining a compartment in which the label 20b is stored
and from which the label can be extended for reading but does not
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013