CAFC affirms Board decision in Bayne

Bad news for pro se appellant Bayne: The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
(“Board”) affirmed.1 We affirm the Board.

From the decision:

Bayne ignores the fundamental principle that a
rejection under section 103 can be, and often is, based on
“[t]he combination of familiar elements” found in different
prior art references. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007). We see no error in the Board’s
determination.

Yes, common sense is invoked:


Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding
that a skilled artisan would have known to modify the
method disclosed in Elterich by reversing the order of
outgoing and incoming transactions. “A person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Moreover, where, as here,
“the references and the invention are easily understandable,”
the Board does not err by relying on its “common
sense” to make such a determination. See Wyers v. Master
Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238-42 (Fed. Cir. 2010).