Ex Parte Maurer et al - Page 4

            Appeal 2007-0269                                                                                 
            Application 10/799,095                                                                           

        1   attached to the rib or the base.  (Welygan, col. 2, ll. 24-30).  The embodiment of               
        2   Fig. 7, for instance, shows undulating ribs of a sinusoidal pattern where the ribs               
        3   undulate in phase with one another.  The structure of Welygan is extruded, and the               
        4   structure can be made of many thermoplastics, rubbers, thermosetting plastic                     
        5   materials, natural substances, or even foodstuffs.  (Welygan, col. 3, ll. 15-50).  The           
        6   structure of Welygan is suitable for use as packing or as an energy absorbing                    
        7   material among other uses.  (Welygan, col. 10, ll. 35-36).                                       
        8                                                                                                    
        9                                 PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                                  
       10          “Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the               
       11   subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject                 
       12   matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a                
       13   person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR             
       14   Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).                   
       15   The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual                       
       16   determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any                     
       17   differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and (3) the level              
       18   of skill in the art.  Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459,                 
       19   467 (1966).  See also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 (“While the                      
       20   sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the                       
       21   [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”)  The Court in                   
       22   Graham further noted that evidence of secondary considerations “might be utilized                
       23   to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter                  
       24   sought to be patented.” 383 U.S. at 18, 148 USPQ at 467.                                         
       25          In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in granting a                  
       26   patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,” id. at 1739,                

                                                      4                                                      


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013