Patent Interference No. 103,548
A claimed invention is invalid for obviousness if the differences between it and
the prior art "are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art." 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). "Invalidity based on obviousness is a question of law based on underlying
facts. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966);
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1566-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-
97 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The relevant facts relate to (1) the scope and content of the prior
art, (2) the level of ordinary skill in the field of the invention, (3) the differences between
the claimed invention and the prior art, and (4) any objective evidence of
nonobviousness such as long felt need, commercial success, the failure of others, or
copying. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17, 148 USPQ at 467; see Continental Can Co. USA, Inc.
v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1270, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1750-51 (Fed. Cir. 1991)."
C.R. Bard Inc. v. M3 Systems Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 48 USPQ2d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir.
1998).
Scope and Content of Prior Art
Konrad claims:
· a genus of C1-4 alkyl-substituted indolines that covers a large number of
compounds;
· and a subgenus of methyl substituted indolines, i.e. C1 alkyl N-substituted
indoline;
· an indoline structure that is the same as that of Lagrange; and,
· indolines are useful for dyeing hair.
J. Chem. Soc. 1967 (which is cited in the Konrad '851 specification, at p. 3, lines
9-10; copy attached) discloses:
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007