Appeal 2006-1324
Application 09/882,127
Chiriac discloses certain nanocrystalline glass covered wires which
exhibit the magnetic pulse or Barkhausen jump with which Wiegand wires
are associated. As disclosed and claimed, wires made from this material
would be comprised of copper, nickel and iron.
Finally, Honkura discloses a soft magnetic stainless steel. While
Honkural states that the steel could be used in a magnetic sensor, Honkura
does not mention the Barkhausen effect or the magnetic pulse or Wiegand
wires.
PRINCIPAL OF LAW
“A claimed invention is unpatentable 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 pertinent art.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985, 78 USPQ2d 1329,
1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2006) citing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2000); Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). “The ultimate
determination of whether an invention would have been obvious is a legal
conclusion based on underlying findings of fact.” Id. (citing In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
“In assessing whether subject matter would have been non-obvious
under § 103, the Board follows the guidance of the Supreme Court in
Graham v. John Deere Co. 383 U.S. at 17, 148 USPQ at 467. The Board
determines ‘the scope and content of the prior art,’ ascertains ‘the
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,’ and resolves ‘the
level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.’” Id. (citing Dann v. Johnston, 425
U.S. 219, 226, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976)) (quoting Graham, 383 U.S. at
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013