Appeal 2006-3245
Application 10/383,224
383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966), viz., (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; and (3) the level of
ordinary skill in the art.1
In addition to the Graham factors, one must also consider whether a
“teaching, suggestion, or motivation” exists to modify or combine the prior art
teachings.
[T]he “motivation-suggestion-teaching” test asks not
merely what the references disclose, but whether a person
of ordinary skill in the art, possessed with the
understandings and knowledge reflected in the prior art,
and motivated by the general problem facing the
inventor, would have been led to make the combination
recited in the claims. From this it may be determined
whether the overall disclosures, teachings, and
suggestions of the prior art, and the level of skill in the
art – i.e., the understandings and knowledge of persons
having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention-support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
(internal citations omitted).
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 10 recite, “incorporating a presentation of time into at least
one input data component, wherein the presentation of time is periodic, continuous
1 Although Graham also suggests analysis of secondary considerations such as
commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., Appellants
presented no such evidence of secondary considerations for the Board’s
consideration.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013