Raynes, In re, No. 92-1292
| Decision Date | 26 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1292 |
| Citation | 7 F.3d 1037,28 USPQ2d 1630 |
| Parties | In re Burt F. RAYNES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Michael H. Jester, Baker, Maxham, Jester & Meador, of San Diego, CA, submitted, for appellant. Of counsel was Freling E. Baker.
Fred E. McKelvey, Sol., Office of the Sol., of Arlington, VA, submitted for appellee. With him on the brief was Joseph G. Piccolo, Asst. Sol. Of counsel were Richard E. Schafer, John W. Dewhirst, Lee E. Barrett and Albin F. Drost.
Before NEWMAN, PLAGER, and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.
Burt F. Raynes appeals the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, holding all claims of patent application Serial No. 513, 235 unpatentable for failure to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 103. We affirm the Board's decision.
The Raynes invention is a computer-processed interactive automobile service station, wherein the fuel pumps are equipped with means for display of video programming as well as fuel price and quantity and other electronically recorded information. The examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 6, 8, and 10 as obvious in view of United States Patent No. 3,949,207 to Savary et al. Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11-15 were rejected as obvious in view of Savary in combination with United States Patent No. 4,658,371 to Walsh et al. This court reviews de novo the Board's determination of whether a claimed invention would have been obvious in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re McCarthy, 763 F.2d 411, 412, 226 USPQ 99, 100 (Fed.Cir.1985).
Claims 1 and 11 were agreed to be representative.
1. An interactive automobile servicing system, comprising:
a central processing unit;
a plurality of fuel pumps connected to the central processing unit and including means for displaying video programming and price/quantity information regarding the amount of fuel dispensed; and
means for providing the video programming to the pumps.
The claim is partly in the form authorized by 35 U.S.C. § 112 p 6, and is directed to the function of video display at the fuel pump by the means stated in the specification and equivalents thereof.
As the means for displaying video programming, Raynes' specification states that the cathode ray tube (CRT) of television display may be used. As the means for providing the video programming, Raynes refers to an "audio/video module" which may include a video tape machine, a video disk player, or a CD audio player. Raynes argues that the display of video programming at the fuel pump is not shown or suggested in the cited references.
The Savary patent describes an automotive servicing system having a central processing unit and four fuel delivery pumps, each having a "display window or panel" for displaying the quantity and price of the gasoline. It is not disputed that all of the elements of Raynes' claim 1 are shown in the Savary patent except for the video display means and provision of video programming. Savary states that
the display system can be any conventional system but, in the present embodiment, it comprises using a seven segment display.
Savary further describes the display system as a panel consisting of "luminous elements". Raynes interprets this to mean that Savary's display system is a light emitting diode (LED) or liquid crystal display (LCD). While there is no mention of a LED or LCD in Savary's specification or claims, the Commissioner does not dispute this interpretation.
The Board observed that video display using a CRT is a conventional display system, and cited the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, which contains the following statement:
Displays. Flat-panel visual displays are an active area of research aimed at a lucrative market. Such displays may eventually displace the bulky and fragile cathode ray tube in television and computer applications, despite continual advances in CRT technology. A flat-panel display consists of an array of closely spaced elements.... The individual elements may be light emitting, such as the LED, plasma panel, cathodoluminescent device, and electroluminescent device, or non-emitting, as in liquid crystals[.]
The Board held that it would have been obvious to replace the display system of Savary with a CRT display, with its known video capability.
When determining whether a new combination of known elements would have been obvious in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 103, the analytic focus is upon the state of knowledge at the time the invention was made. The Commissioner bears the burden of showing that such knowledge provided some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to make the particular combination that was made by the applicant. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445-47, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444-46 (Fed.Cir.1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed.Cir.1984). This determination is made from the viewpoint of the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 103; In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed.Cir.1991).
The question presented by the Raynes application is not whether the CRT, the LED, and the LCD are known display systems, but whether Raynes' combination including video display at the fuel pump would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill. Raynes does not dispute that the CRT, LCD, and LED are conventional forms of electronic display, but argues that the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia 1 if anything teaches away from his invention, in that it states that the LED and LCD are flat-panel visual displays, which were not then used in video applications.
Raynes argues that Savary does not suggest the use of video programming at the fuel pump, and that the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia shows that even if the LCD, LED, and CRT were known display systems, they were not interchangeable for display of video programming. Thus Raynes argues that it is not controlling whether the CRT means described in his specification and the LED/LCD means of Savary were known and conventional display means, because the function of providing video display at the fuel pump was new and unobvious. Raynes argues that Savary contemplated no more than the display of fuel quantity and price information using a system conventional for that purpose. Raynes points out that the Savary display system uses binary coded decimal signals and seven-segment numerical display, requiring different circuitry than does a video system.
In In re Taylor, 288 F.2d 950, 954, 129 USPQ 269, 272 (CCPA 1961), the court referred to broad concepts "in the realm of the obvious", a designation that is apt in this case, for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cedarapids, Inc. v. Nordberg, Inc.
...person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; Glaverbel, 45 F.3d at 1555; In re Raynes, 7 F.3d 1037, 1039 (Fed.Cir.1993). The proponent of the nonobviousness of the invention must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed inv......
- Serrao v. Merit Systems Protection Bd.
-
NAT. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT v. VARIAN ASSOC.
...viewpoint of the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time the invention was made." In re Raynes, 7 F.3d 1037, 1039 (Fed.Cir.1993) (citations Factors which are probative of the level of ordinary skill in the art include the educational level of the inve......
- Acha v. Dep't of Agric.