Of written description, Henderson argued that his patent application, including the Specification and Drawings, disclose an integrated circuit. The BPAI response: we do not find that simply showing a circuit as a box equates to an integrated circuit.
Of obvious design choice, the BPAI noted:
We note that making elements of a device integral or separable is considered to be an obvious design choice and does not render an invention patentable. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965); In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961).
KSR was cited as to combining KNOWN elements:
Thus, combining each of these elements into a single unit represents nothing more than a combination of known devices, which when combined yield the predictable result of an integrated read-reset circuit. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
**Recall the citation to Translogic made by the CAFC in the Kimberly-Clark case:
See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (“[O]bvious variants of prior art references are
themselves part of the public domain.”).
see IPBiz post
Kimberly-Clark v. First Quality: preliminary injunctions