Appeal 2007-0399
Application 09/961,024
an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion
may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the
‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of
references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for
example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter,
smaller, more durable, or more efficient … In such situations, the
proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge
and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art
references.
DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis in
original).
References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 103 qualify as
prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the
claimed invention. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060
(Fed. Cir. 1992). Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art:
(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the
problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the
inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Deminski, 796
F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Wood,
599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979) and In re Bigio,
381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Furthermore, “‘there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness’ . . . [H]owever,
the analysis 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
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013