Obviousness

Based on the provided patent text for U.S. Patent No. 11,829,518 and the explicit instruction to "Use the results from the Prior Art section of this page," a direct analysis of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining specific prior art references cannot be fully completed. The "Prior art" section in the provided context only lists "Prior art keywords" (glasses, head, electronic apparatus, wireless electronic, user) and a "Prior art date" of July 28, 2004. It does not provide specific patent numbers or publications as prior art references that can be combined.

However, I can outline the key elements of the independent claims and discuss, conceptually, what types of prior art would be necessary to render these claims obvious, along with the likely motivations for combination, assuming such references existed before the priority date of July 28, 2004.

Independent Claims to be Analyzed:

• Claim 1: A pair of glasses comprising: a frame; a first switch at the frame, the first switch having at least two operational states, wherein the operational states of the switch are configured to be changed by a user touching a surface of the frame, without moving any mechanical part at least partially exposed to the outside of the frame; and a first electrical component in the frame configured to be electrically coupled to the first switch to perform a function.
• Claim 13: A pair of glasses comprising: an eyewear frame; electrical circuitry at least partially in the eyewear frame; and a touch sensitive input surface on the eyewear frame configured to provide an input to the electrical circuitry to perform a function via touching the touch sensitive input surface.

The core inventive concepts in these claims revolve around integrating electrical components into glasses frames and, critically, controlling them via touch-sensitive surfaces directly on the frame, without reliance on visible or movable mechanical parts.

Conceptual Obviousness Analysis (assuming existence of relevant prior art):

To establish obviousness for claims 1 and 13, a combination of prior art references would typically need to disclose the following elements, and a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would need a motivation to combine them:

Hypothetical Prior Art Combination:

1. Primary Reference (e.g., Reference A): A document disclosing a "head-worn device" or "glasses" (as per prior art keywords) that includes an "electronic apparatus" or "electrical component."

   • This reference would establish the general concept of incorporating electronics into eyewear. The patent's background itself acknowledges the existence of "head-sets" for mobile phones, which function as "head-worn device[s]" and contain "electrical components" like speakers and microphones. The patent also notes that "the present invention provides a pair of glasses with one or more embedded or partially embedded electrical components."

2. Secondary Reference (e.g., Reference B): A document disclosing "touch-sensitive input surfaces" (as per claim 13) or "switches" operable by touching a surface "without moving any mechanical part" (as per claim 1) for controlling electronic devices.

   • This reference would demonstrate the state of touch-sensitive technology prior to July 28, 2004. Touchpads on laptop computers and early touchscreens were known technologies. Reference B would teach the general principle of using capacitive, resistive, or other non-mechanical touch sensors for user input.

Motivation to Combine:

A PHOSITA, considering the state of the art before July 28, 2004, would likely have been motivated to combine these hypothetical references for several reasons:

• Improved Aesthetics and Form Factor: Integrating electronic components into eyeglasses inherently aims for a more compact and less obtrusive "head-worn device." Mechanical buttons or switches can interrupt the sleek design of eyewear. Replacing them with touch-sensitive surfaces would offer a cleaner, more integrated appearance, consistent with the design goals of wearable technology.
• Enhanced User Experience (Hands-Free Operation): The patent itself highlights the problem with mobile phones, where "the user has difficultly interacting with the keypad or screen of the mobile phone when the mobile phone is held against the user's head." The desire for hands-free interaction with electronic devices, especially those worn on the head, would naturally lead a PHOSITA to explore intuitive control mechanisms. Touch-sensitive controls on the frame of glasses would provide a convenient and discreet way for a "user" to interact with embedded electronics without requiring visual attention or complex manipulations.
• Durability and Weather Resistance: Mechanical switches often have openings that can be susceptible to dust, moisture, or wear and tear. Touch-sensitive surfaces, especially those integrated seamlessly into the frame, can improve the durability and resistance of the "electronic apparatus" to environmental factors.
• Technological Feasibility: Given that touch-sensitive input technology was already established in other consumer electronics by 2004, a PHOSITA would recognize the technical feasibility of adapting such technology for smaller, integrated applications like eyewear. The "electrical circuitry" and "switch" could be fabricated using known methods (e.g., printed circuit boards, flexible circuits) to fit within the "eyewear frame."

Conclusion on Obviousness based on provided information:

While the provided "Prior art" section does not furnish specific prior art documents, the conceptual analysis suggests that if prior art existed before July 28, 2004, that separately taught:

1. A head-worn device (e.g., glasses) with integrated electrical components (e.g., speakers, microphones, or other functions mentioned in the patent such as MP3 players or cameras).
2. Electronic devices controlled by touch-sensitive interfaces that operate without external mechanical movement.

Then, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these elements to create a more aesthetically pleasing, user-friendly, and durable head-worn electronic device with integrated and discreet controls. The motivations would stem from known desires in the art for miniaturization, hands-free operation, and sleek design in consumer electronics.