Appeal 2007-1050
Application 10/058,360
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.
Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The reasoning provided by a recent decision from our reviewing court
is also compelling as to the subject matter and arguments relative to all
claims. Note Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The court made it clear that
the mere adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology, such
as computers, that were commonly available and understood in the art
ordinarily would have been considered an obvious improvement.
Appellants present the same three general arguments in the Brief and
Reply Brief that are characterized under topics A-C. Under topic A
Appellants generally urge that as to both groups of claims, that is, both
stated rejections of the Examiner, the Examiner has improperly picked and
chosen among isolated elements particular teachings of the respective
references to Deken and Berry. Under topic B, with respect to the second
stated rejections or group two, Appellants allege that the Examiner’s
additional reliance upon Dazey in this rejection is improper because the
reference teaches away from the proposed combination. Lastly, under topic
C, Appellants urge that there is no motivation to have combined the
respective references as to both stated rejections. With these particular
arguments we strongly disagree.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013