Appeal 2007-0958
Application 10/807,935
prior art and respondent's system is simply not so great as to render the
system nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art.” Dann v . Johnston,
425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976) (holding that claims directed
to a machine system for automatic record keeping of bank checks and
deposits were obvious in view of the use of data processing equipment and
computer programs in the banking industry at the time of the invention in
combination with a prior art automatic data processing system using a
programmed digital computer for use in a large business organization).
It is sufficient in cases like this that the Examiner has reached a
conclusion of obviousness after careful consideration of the evidence within
the Graham framework. The burden, in cases like this, is properly shifted to
Appellants to prove that the claimed subject matter would not have been
obvious over the prior art to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since here
Appellants has presented no evidence that combining Stengel’s “receiver
with battery saver” with Lemelson’s “lock activating method” would have
required anything more from one of ordinary skill in the art than to combine
two known features doing no more than they would in separate, sequential
operation, the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been
overcome, irrespective of Appellants’ views about the strength of the
Examiner’s reasoning. Accordingly, we conclude that the subject matter of
claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art given the
teachings of Stengel and Lemelson.
Regarding Claim 5
Appellants contend that “Stamm does not teach or suggest using
infrared within an unlocking device that is periodically enabled to receive an
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013