Appeal 2007-1925
Application 09/391,869
The Federal Circuit recently concluded that it would have been obvious to
combine (1) a mechanical device for actuating a phonograph to play back sounds
associated with a letter in a word on a puzzle piece with (2) an electronic,
processor-driven device capable of playing the sound associated with a first letter
of a word in a book. Leapfrog Ent., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1690-91 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[a]ccommodating a prior art
mechanical device that accomplishes [a desired] goal to modern electronics would
have been reasonably obvious to one of ordinary skill in designing children’s
learning devices”). In reaching that conclusion, the Federal Circuit recognized that
“[a]n obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated
from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those
skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious
where others would not.” Id. at 1161, 82 USPQ2d at 1687 (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct.
1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (“The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.”). The Federal Circuit relied in part on the fact that
Leapfrog had presented no evidence that the inclusion of a reader in the combined
device was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or
“represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Id. (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at
1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013