Ex Parte Dart et al - Page 31


                Appeal 2007-1325                                                                              
                Application 10/065,722                                                                        
           1    KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.  The holding in KSR makes                         
           2    clear that there is no longer, if there ever was, a rigid requirement for finding             
           3    a reason to combine teachings of the prior art.                                               
           4                 Helpful insights, however, need not become rigid                                 
           5                 and mandatory formulas; and when it is so applied,                               
           6                 the TSM test is incompatible with our precedents.                                
           7                 The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a                                 
           8                 formalistic conception of the words teaching,                                    
           9                 suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on                                
          10                 the importance of published articles and the                                     
          11                 explicit content of issued patents.  KSR, 127 S. Ct.                             
          12                 at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.                                                      
          13    Rather, the application of common sense may control the                                       
          14    reasoning to combine prior art teachings. See Id. at 1742, 1397.                              
          15          The practice of attaching a strap to an item to prevent it from being                   
          16    lost is familiar to everyone and has long been used in the simplest                           
          17    applications.  It is common sense, for example, to attach these items to a                    
          18    holder to keep them from being lost, (1) a surf board to the surfer’s ankle,                  
          19    (2) reading glasses to the neck of the reader, (3) a chuck key to a drill, (4) a              
          20    fire hydrant hose opening cover to the hydrant, (5) car gas caps to a car, (6)                
          21    golf club covers one to another, (7) baby pacifiers to a baby's shirts, (8) kids              
          22    gloves to a winter coat, (9) keys to a belt, etc.  Thus, common sense acquired                
          23    by everyday experience would dictate that the plug9 or cover to the drink                     
          24    opening disclosed in Freek at column 3, lines 63-65, would somehow be                         
          25    attached to the lid through the intermediary of a strap or lanyard in order to                
          26    prevent the plug from being lost when the contents are not being consumed.                    
                                                                                                             
                9 Appellants argue (Br. 10) that the Examiner has mischaracterized the word                   
                “plug” from Freek.  But, Freek in column 3, line 63 explicitly states that a                  
                “plug” may cover the drink opening. The term “plug” thus speaks for itself.                   
                                                     31                                                       

Page:  Previous  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013