Appeal 2007-0958
Application 10/807,935
12. Lemelson discloses that “…in Fig. 14 …the code generating
circuits supported by chip 99 may be operable to generate such code and
transmit it via short wave radio to the code transceiver 18..to open a lock…”
(col. 12, ll. 21-47).
Stamm
13. Stamm discloses a battery operated access control card 10 that
“can receive any type of wireless transmission from a transmitter such as
ultrasonic, infrared, etc., …” (col. 2, ll. 48-51).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007). The question of obviousness is
resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the
scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where
in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John 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.”)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013