Appeal 2007-0321
Application 10/669,547
We are not persuaded by this argument. Michaels discloses that its
composition has “a soothing effect on skin” (id. at col. 1, l. 42), and that
even when used as a paint remover it leaves the treated area “supple and
refreshed” (id. at col. 2, l. 24). Thus, one of ordinary skill would have
reasoned that the skin-soothing effects of Michaels’ composition were not
limited to its lubricant action during shaving.
Appellants argue that In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955),
cited by the Examiner, is distinguishable from the facts of this case because
the rejection in Aller was over a single reference that differed from the claim
only with respect to the claimed concentration range, whereas in the instant
situation “the skilled chemist must not only increase lipophyl [sic]
concentration but must transplant this adjusted value into a depilatory
system found in a different reference. Especially in a situation where
combination of such references is questionable, altering the concentration of
one element is not obviously straightforward experimentation” (Br. 11).
We are not persuaded by this argument. Recently addressing the issue
of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 U.S.C. §
103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”
KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396
(2007). The Court also advised that “[a] person of ordinary skill is . . . a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at
1397.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013