Appeal 2007-1917
Application 10/222,660
said mount to a surface, said signage being mounted using said fasteners with said
mount in place.”
The Examiner found that Sekiguchi shows a display system having support
posts 620 and 622, and thus held that “it would have been obvious to one skilled in
the art to provide support posts in the structure of Boeniger, as well known such as
support posts similar to that of Sekiguchi, for supporting the display system [of]
Boeniger fixed in place in a vertical orientation for better viewing or showing”
(Answer 4).
The Appellant argued that claims 6 and 8 are patentable over Boeniger and
Sekiguchi, because Sekiguchi is directed to a display that features moveable
messages and high quality images and that Sekiguchi’s display does not equate to
the display system of the claims (Appeal Br. 17). This is not the proper test for
obviousness. See KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (finding that the
Court of Appeals erred in assuming that a person of ordinary skill attempting to
solve a problem will be led only to those elements of the prior art designed to solve
the same problem). The Supreme Court in KSR stated that “[c]ommon sense
teaches, however, that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary
purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the
teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. As such,
whether Sekiguchi’s display is similar to the claimed display system is irrelevant to
the issue of whether it would have been obvious to modify Boeniger’s display
system with the mounting posts taught by Sekiguchi.
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013