Appeal 2007-2593
Application 09/859,359
1 determined; [(2)] differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be
2 ascertained; and [(3)] the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.” 383
3 U.S. at 17. See also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734. “The combination of familiar
4 elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
5 than yield predictable results.” KSR, at 1739.
6 “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and
7 other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in a
8 different one. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable
9 variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 1740.
10 “For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device,
11 and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
12 similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
13 application is beyond his or her skill.” Id.
14 “Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of
15 endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason
16 for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 1742.
17 Automation of a Known Process
18 It is generally obvious to automate a known manual procedure or mechanical
19 device. Our reviewing court stated in Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price
20 Inc., 485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
21 found it obvious to combine an old electromechanical device with electronic
22 circuitry “to update it using modern electronic components in order to gain the
23 commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as decreased size,
24 increased reliability, simplified operation, and reduced cost. . . . The combination
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013