Appeal 2006-3386
Application 10/448,569
spray a residual from aerosol canister 72 onto the treatment surface (McQueen, col.
5, ll. 9-15).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been
established, we are guided by the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (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.
In addition to our review of the Graham factors, we must also consider
“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.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
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. Id.
ANALYSIS
Claims 3 and 4 require that a first gaseous mixture, specifically chosen to
render rodents unconscious, is delivered through a delivery orifice for a first period
of time, and after the first mixture has been delivered, a second gaseous mixture,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013