Appeal 2007-2742
Application 09/764,618
1 for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at
2 1397.
3 Automation of a Known Process
4 It is generally obvious to automate a known manual procedure or mechanical
5 device. Our reviewing court stated in Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price
6 Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) that one of ordinary skill in
7 the art would have found it obvious to combine an old electromechanical device
8 with electronic circuitry “to update it using modern electronic components in order
9 to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as decreased
10 size, increased reliability, simplified operation, and reduced cost. . . . The
11 combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention . . . using newer
12 technology that is commonly available and understood in the art.” Id. at 1162, 82
13 USPQ2d 1691.
14
15 ANALYSIS
16 Claims 1-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bogosian and
17 Hambrecht.
18 The Appellants contend that, apart from the lack of certain claim elements
19 being found in the applied art, that Bogosian and Hambrecht cannot be combined
20 because Hambrecht is not analogous art. Both Bogosian and Hambrecht are
21 directed towards transactions in an auction format that require payment following
22 the auction. Thus, both are directed towards the field of auction sales endeavors
23 generally and each solves problems that are useful to the other.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013