Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent No. 11,921,355 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis evaluates the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,921,355 ('355 patent) for obviousness in light of the prior art references cited during its prosecution. The standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). A PHOSITA in this field would likely be an engineer or product designer with experience in consumer electronics, wearable technology, and eyewear manufacturing.

The core concept of the '355 patent revolves around modularly adding electronic components to eyeglasses via a "temple arrangement" or a "temple adapter." This allows for customization and upgrading of eyewear with functionalities like audio playback, communication, or health monitoring. The prior art, however, extensively explores this very concept.

---

I. Obviousness of Independent Claim 1

Independent Claim 1 claims a pair of glasses comprising a frame and a "temple arrangement" attached to a temple, where the arrangement contains at least one electrical component. The claim specifies that this arrangement can be a "temple tip," "temple cover," or "fit-over temple."

Primary Reference: U.S. Patent No. 7,163,283 (Hsu)

Hsu discloses eyeglasses with a detachable electronic device, such as an MP3 player, that attaches to the temple. This directly teaches the core combination of eyewear and a modular electronic unit on the temple. Hsu's device contains electrical components (e.g., MP3 player circuitry, memory, connector) and attaches to the temple, fulfilling the main limitations of Claim 1.

The only potential distinction is the specific form of the "temple arrangement." While Hsu shows a discrete module that attaches to the side of the temple, Claim 1 of the '355 patent recites that the arrangement can be a "temple tip," "temple cover," or "fit-over."

Motivation to Modify Hsu:

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to modify Hsu’s design for improved aesthetics, comfort, and integration. Hsu's "add-on" module, while functional, is not as streamlined as an integrated component. Temple tips and covers are well-known, conventional elements in eyeglass design, used to provide a comfortable fit behind the ear.

It would have been an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA to integrate the electronics taught by Hsu directly into a replacement temple tip or a temple cover. This would be a predictable solution to the problem of making electronic eyewear less bulky and more fashionable. The motivation is simply to house the known electronic components from Hsu within a different, known form factor (a temple tip or cover) to achieve a more seamless and commercially appealing product. This combination of known elements (Hsu's electronics and a standard temple tip) to achieve a predictable result (integrated electronic eyewear) renders the invention of Claim 1 obvious.

Conclusion for Claim 1: Claim 1 is likely invalid as obvious over Hsu in view of common knowledge in the field of eyeglass design. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to re-package the electronic module of Hsu into the form of a temple tip, cover, or fit-over for improved ergonomics and aesthetics.

---

II. Obviousness of Independent Claim 11

Independent Claim 11 is directed to a "temple adapter" for eyeglasses, which includes an electrical component and a mechanism for attaching to the temple. This claim focuses on the adapter itself as a product.

Primary Reference: U.S. Patent No. 8,630,680 (Rachabathuni)

Rachabathuni explicitly discloses a hands-free headset system with interchangeable holding mechanisms, including an "eyeglass clip" designed to attach the headset's main electronic body to the temple of a pair of glasses. This "eyeglass clip" in combination with the electronic body is precisely what is claimed as a "temple adapter" in the '355 patent. It is a separate unit containing electrical components (a headset) that adapts to and is attachable to an eyeglass temple.

Secondary Reference: U.S. Patent No. 8,212,859 (Koppes)

To the extent that the '355 patent's specification envisions a broader range of electronic components than the headset in Rachabathuni, Koppes can be combined. Koppes teaches a "removable and replaceable wireless communications module" for eyewear. A PHOSITA, knowing of different attachment methods, would find it obvious to apply the clip-on adapter mechanism from Rachabathuni to the various electronic modules taught by Koppes (or Hsu, or Lin).

Motivation to Combine:

The motivation is to increase modularity and user choice. A manufacturer of the wireless module in Koppes would want to provide multiple ways for a user to attach it to their glasses. Using an adapter clip like the one taught by Rachabathuni is a well-known method for achieving such interchangeability. This represents a simple combination of a known electronic module (Koppes) with a known attachment method (Rachabathuni) to create the claimed "temple adapter." The combination would have yielded predictable results and would have been obvious to a PHOSITA seeking to create a universal electronic accessory for eyewear.

Conclusion for Claim 11: Claim 11 is likely invalid as obvious over Rachabathuni, which discloses all the elements of the claim. Alternatively, it is obvious over a combination of Koppes and Rachabathuni.

---

III. Obviousness of Independent Claim 20

Independent Claim 20 recites a method of providing a customer with electronic eyewear, comprising the steps of providing a plurality of temple arrangements/adapters with different functionalities and enabling a customer to browse, select, and couple the selected arrangement to their eyewear.

Primary Reference: U.S. Patent No. 7,782,234 (Lin)

Lin discloses a glasses-type electronic device with "functional modules" that can be "removably attached" to the temples. Lin explicitly describes that these modules can have different functions, such as being a camera or an MP3 player. The entire purpose of creating such an interchangeable modular system is to allow a user to customize their device.

The method claimed in '355 is merely the commercial exploitation of the system described by Lin. Providing a plurality of options (as taught by Lin's different "functional modules") and allowing a customer to select one is not a patentable method, but rather a fundamental business practice. Once a technical product with interchangeable parts exists (as in Lin), the method of selling those parts to a customer is self-evident.

Motivation to Combine:

The motivation is commercial. A PHOSITA, or indeed anyone in business, would understand that a product with interchangeable functional modules like Lin's is meant to be marketed by offering those modules as distinct options to a consumer. The steps of "providing," "enabling to browse," and "enabling to select" are inherent in the act of selling any modular product. Therefore, this claim attempts to patent a business method that is an obvious and direct consequence of the technical teachings of the prior art.

Conclusion for Claim 20: Claim 20 is likely invalid as obvious over Lin. The technical system disclosed by Lin makes the claimed method of commercializing that system obvious to any person of ordinary skill in business or product marketing.