Appeal 2007-1229
Application 10/325,333
1 accomplishes [a desired] goal to modern electronics would have been
2 reasonably obvious to one of ordinary skill in designing children’s learning
3 devices”). In reaching that conclusion, the Federal Circuit recognized that
4 “[a]n obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula
5 disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the
6 common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some
7 combinations would have been obvious where others would not.” Id. at
8 1161, 82 USPQ2d at 1687 (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d
9 1385, 1395 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to
10 known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
11 predictable results”). The Federal Circuit relied in part on the fact that
12 Leapfrog had presented no evidence that the inclusion of a reader in the
13 combined device was “uniquely challenging
14 or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious
15 step over the prior art.” Id. (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at
16 1396).
17 The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
18 presumed to know the relevant prior art. Custom Accessories, Inc. v.
19 Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962, 1 USPQ2d 1196, 1201 (Fed.
20 Cir. 1986). In determining this skill level, the court may consider various
21 factors including “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions
22 to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication
23 of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” Id.
24 (cited in In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir.
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013