Appeal 2007-0872
Application 10/159,762
1 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2000); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007);
2 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1966).
3 In Graham, the Court held that that the obviousness analysis is bottomed on
4 several basic factual inquiries: “[(1)] the scope and content of the prior art are to be
5 determined; [(2)] differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be
6 ascertained; and [(3)] the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.” 383
7 U.S. at 17. See also KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. at 1734. “The
8 combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
9 obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, at 1739.
10 “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and
11 other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or [in] a
12 different one. If a person of ordinary skill [in the art] can implement a predictable
13 variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 1740.
14 “For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device,
15 and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
16 similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
17 application is beyond his or her skill.” Id.
18 “Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of
19 endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason
20 for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 1742.
21
22 ANALYSIS
23 We will affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 21 and 25-28 as
24 unpatentable over Schaap in view of Fernandez Lopez. As noted above in our
25 findings of fact, Schaap discloses that the web of a roller blind is provided with a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013