Appeal 2006-1400
Application 10/649,128
Finally, Kumasaka shows a conventional luau or tiki lamp with a metal
snuffer or cap 40 attached to the tiki pole by a chain tether. Kumasaka does not
disclose a cover for the entire tiki lamp.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the
subject matter sought to be patented 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 to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of
skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). See
also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 (“While the sequence of these
questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue
to define the inquiry that controls.”) In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the
need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found
in the prior art,” id. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in
which a patent might be determined to be obvious. In particular, the Supreme
Court emphasized that “the principles laid down in Graham reaffirmed the
‘functional approach’ of Hotchkiss, 11 How. 248.” KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1739, 82
USPQ2d at 1395 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12 (1966)
(emphasis added)), and reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013