Appeal 2006-3252
Application 09/536,728
1 Other findings
2 Other findings are made in the Analysis portion of this opinion,
3 including findings related to (1) differences between the subject matter of
4 the claims and the prior art and (2) the level of skill in the art.
5
6 E. Principles of law
7 A claimed invention is not patentable if the subject matter of the
8 claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
9 in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct.
10 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1
11 (1966).
12 Facts relevant to a determination of obviousness include (1) the scope
13 and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
14 invention and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art and (4) any
15 relevant objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. KSR, 127
16 S. Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1389, Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.
17 A person having ordinary skill in the art uses known elements and
18 process steps for their intended purpose. Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v.
19 Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969) (use of radiant-heat burner for its
20 intended purpose held to be obvious).
21 The invention claimed in a patent is presumed to be operative because
22 the patent enjoys a statutory presumption of validity and operativeness is a
23 prerequisite to validity. Cf. In re Spence, 261 F.2d 244, 246, 120 USPQ 82,
24 83 (CCPA 1958).
25
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013