Appeal 2007-2240
Application 09/818,016
1 of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the
2 importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. The
3 diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against limiting
4 the analysis in this way. In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of
5 obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market
6 demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends.” Id. “Under the
7 correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
8 invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the
9 elements in the manner claimed.” Id at 1732, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
10 Automation of a Known Process
11 It is generally obvious to automate a known manual procedure or mechanical
12 device. Our reviewing court stated in Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price
13 Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) that one of ordinary skill in
14 the art would have found it obvious to combine an old electromechanical device
15 with electronic circuitry “to update it using modern electronic components in order
16 to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as decreased
17 size, increased reliability, simplified operation, and reduced cost. . . . The
18 combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention . . . using newer
19 technology that is commonly available and understood in the art.” Id at 1163, 82
20 USPQ2d 1691.
21
22 ANALYSIS
23 Claims 1-8 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lesaint and
24 Bergeron.
18
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013