Appeal 2007-1568
Application 09/900,375
of obviousness must be based on “an apparent reason to combine the known
elements in the fashion claimed.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). That is, “there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at
1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)). Such reasoning can be based on interrelated teachings of
multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or
present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41, 82
USPQ2d at 1396.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Claims 1, 5, and 8
As set forth above, independent claim 1 requires a dial face that
displays a graphical representation of a scheduled activity associated with a
time of day segment displayed on the dial face. We find that Hepp
substantially teaches that limitation. As detailed in the Findings of Fact
section above, we have found that Hepp teaches a dial face of a timepiece
that graphically depicts thereon objects to represent a particular season
associated with changes in a treetop over time during the course of a year.
(Findings 6-7). We have also found that Hepp further teaches a figurative
character for providing users with a visual reminder of jobs to be done at
different times during the course of a day. (Finding 8). It is our view that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that Hepp’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013