Appeal 2007-1112
Application 10/692,116
2. Whether Caudill has shown that the Examiner’s rejection of claims
3-5 and 10-13 a under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Haldenby in view of Seal and Luttmann et al. is in error based on an
improper combination of the teachings of the references?
IV. Legal principles
“A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art
are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
which said subject matter pertains.” 35 USC § 103(a).
In determining whether claimed subject matter would have been
obvious we take into consideration (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, (3) the
level of skill in the art, and (4) any relevant objection evidence of
obviousness or non-obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct.
1727, 1730, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1388 (2007), Graham v. John Deere Co. of
Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). The references of record may be
relied upon to show the level of skill in the art. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573,
1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
There need not be explicit suggestion in the prior art to combine the
teachings of prior art references. As stated by the Supreme Court, “[t]he
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013