Appeal 2007-1780 Application 10/340,127 Doss (See Doss, Fig. 1, i.e., quick disconnect connector members 50 and 52; see also col. 3, ll. 46-47). In particular, we find an artisan having ordinary skill and common sense would have clearly recognized that a rider dismounting a motorcycle would need to quickly disconnect the wired helmet from the coiled cable connected to the motorcycle wiring harness (Id.). Thus, we find the proffered combination of Grasso and Doss reasonably teaches and/or suggests Appellants’ claimed invention in terms of familiar elements that would have been combined by an artisan having common sense using known methods to achieve a predictable result at the time of the invention. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Leapfrog Enter., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739-40). Regarding Appellants’ argument that “Doss lacks any of the advantages provided by Applicants’ invention (such as is set forth in Appellants’ disclosure at 7:3-10),” we note that Appellants have failed to argue any specific claim limitations. Patentability is based upon the claims. “It is the claims that measure the invention.” SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). A basic canon of claim construction is that one may not read a limitation into a claim from the written description. Renishaw plc v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find Appellants have failed to rebut the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness by establishing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or evidence of 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013