Appeal 2007-2844
Application 09/829,032
and “[s]ince none of the cited references provide any better solution in this
regard, obviousness has not been established.” (Id.)
First, although Appellant may have used “through-holes,” “at least
one aperture” and “a fastener” to hold the sign in an aligned, upright
position, a finding of obviousness does not require that the motivation to
combine references be identical to the Appellant’s to establish obviousness.
In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
As noted by the United States Supreme Court:
In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is
obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed
purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective
reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is
invalid under § 103. One of the ways in which a patent’s
subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there
existed as the time of the invention a known problem for which
there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s
claims.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741-42, 82 USPQ2d 1385,
1397 (2007).
Thus, while Brault may not specifically infer height adjustability,
Brault does suggest different uses for his support apparatus, such as holding
the basket in basketball, for holding a net in tennis or badminton games and
for generally holding pictograms or shelves, which require some sort of
height adjustability. As evidenced by Ferrari, Wilson, and Cragg, the use of
a post having a plurality of spaced-apart through-holes was known to the
ordinary artisan as a method of providing height adjustability.
Moreover, Ferrari, Wilson, and Cragg also demonstrate that the use of
“through-holes,” “at least one aperture” and “a fastener” was known in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013