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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013