(citations omitted). In this case, the general problem to be solved was one of resealable
hygienic packaging.
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the references being combine d do
not need to explicitly suggest combining their teachings. See e.g., Kahn, 441 F.3d at
987-88, 78 USPQ2d at 1337-38 (“the teaching, motivation, or suggestion may be implic it
from the prior art as a whole, rather than expressly stated in the references”); and In re
Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“for the purpose
of combining references, those references need not explicitly suggest combining
teachings.”).
An explicit teaching that identifies and selects elements from
different sources and states that they should be combined in the
same way as in the invention at issue, is rarely found in the
prior art. As precedent illustrates, many factors are relevant to
the motivation-to-combine aspect of the obviousness inquiry,
such as the field of the specific invention, the subject matter of
the references, the extent to which they are in the same or
related fields of technology, the nature of the advance made by
the applicant, and the maturity and congestion of the field.
. . .
Precedent has also recognized that “[t]he suggestion or
motivation to combine references does not have to be stated
expressly; rather it may be shown by reference to the prior art
itself, to the nature of the problem solved by the claimed
invention, or to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
art.”
In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 1385, 77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790-91 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citin g
Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1221-22
(Fed. Cir. 2003)). “’The test for an implicit showing is what the combined teaching s,
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007