Appeal 2006-1966
Application 10/246,506
the clamping fastener further in the second lateral direction, expands
the expansion slot to a position in the expansion range.
2. Schlueter shows an analogous clamp assembly (see Fig. 7) including
an expansion slot 21’ and a clamping fastener screw 31’. When
moving the fastener further in its second lateral direction, the clamp is
moved to an expanded position due to fastener contacting stopping
structure, dowel 43.
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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013