Appeal No. 2000-0874 Page 5
Application No. 08/695,554
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
As the Supreme Court observed in Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966):
While the ultimate question of patent validity is
one of law, . . . the § 103 condition [that is,
nonobviousness] . . . lends itself to several basic
factual inquiries. Under § 103, the scope and
content of the prior art are to be determined;
differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue are to be ascertained; and the level of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.
Against this background, the obviousness or
nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined.
Such secondary considerations as commercial success,
long felt but unresolved needs, failure of others,
etc., might be utilized to give light to the
circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject
matter sought to be patented. As indicia of
obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may
have relevancy.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007