Appeal 2007-1780
Application 10/340,127
Grasso and Doss cannot make obvious Claim 1 because no
motivation exists to combine Grasso and Doss. For example, no
motivation exists to combine Grasso and Doss to achieve
earphone couplers to selectively couple or release earphones
from a cord integrated with an information handling system.
The motorcycle helmet of Doss is from an art not sufficiently
related to the earphones used for information handling systems
to inherently suggest a combination. Further, the connector of
Doss lacks any of the advantages provided by Applicants’
invention, such as is set forth in Applicants’ disclosure at
7:3-10.
(Br. 3).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner contends that an artisan would
have been motivated to modify Grasso with the teachings of Doss in order to
facilitate easy replacement of earphones. The Examiner finds the combined
teachings of Grasso and Doss would have allowed users to replace broken
earphones, to use earphones customized to their preference, and to use
earphones suitable for the nature of the audio being played (Br. 7). The
Examiner also finds the quick connect/disconnect feature taught by Doss
(connector 50, Fig. 1) would have been advantageous when there arises a
need to move away from the player (e.g., to answer the phone or the door),
or for sanitary reasons when there are multiple users (Br. 7-8).
After carefully considering all of the evidence before us, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that there is no motivation to combine
Grasso and Doss because “[t]he motorcycle helmet of Doss is from an art
not sufficiently related to the earphones used for information handling
systems to inherently suggest a combination.” (See Br. 3).
We note that in KSR, the Supreme Court recently stated:
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013