Appeal 2007-1340
Application 09/996,125
The Federal Circuit recently concluded that it would have been
obvious to combine (1) a device for actuating a phonograph to play back
sounds associated with a letter in a word on a puzzle piece with (2) a
processor-driven device capable of playing the sound associated with a first
letter of a word in a book. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1690-91 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In reaching
that conclusion, the Federal Circuit recognized that "[a]n obviousness
determine is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the
consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those
skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been
obvious where others would not." Id. at 1161, 82 USPQ2d at 1687 (citing
KSR, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007)).
Although the combination of prior art references lacked a "reader" to
automatically identify the book inserted in the device, the Federal Circuit
found no error in the District Court's determination that readers were well
known in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 1162, 82 USPQ2d at
1691. In addition, the Court found that the reasons for adding a reader to the
combination of prior art references "are the same as those for using readers
in other children's toys-namely, providing an added benefit and simplified
use of the toy for the child in order to increase its marketability." Id. at
1162, 82 USPQ2d at 1692. The Federal Circuit relied in part on the fact that
Leapfrog had presented no evidence that the inclusion of a reader in the
combined device was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary
skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Id.
(citing KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013