Ex Parte Zimmer et al - Page 11

               Appeal 2007-1229                                                                             
               Application 10/325,333                                                                       

           1   John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).  See also                       
           2   KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 (“While the sequence of these                      
           3   questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors                    
           4   continue to define the inquiry that controls.”)  The Court in Graham further                 
           5   noted that evidence of secondary considerations, such as commercial                          
           6   success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., “might be                    
           7   utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the                    
           8   subject matter sought to be patented.”  383 U.S. at 18, 148 USPQ at 467.                     
           9          In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in                         
          10   granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior                    
          11   art,” id. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which                   
          12   a patent might be determined to be obvious without an explicit application of                
          13   the teaching, suggestion, motivation test.                                                   
          14          In particular, the Supreme Court emphasized that “the principles laid                 
          15   down in Graham reaffirmed the ‘functional approach’ of Hotchkiss, 11                         
          16   How. 248.” KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing Graham,                         
          17   383 U.S. at 12, 148 USPQ at 464 (emphasis added)), and reaffirmed                            
          18   principles based on its precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar                        
          19   elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does                     
          20   no more than yield predictable results.”  Id.  The Court explained:                          
          21          When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives                  
          22          and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same               
          23          field or a different one.  If a person of ordinary skill can implement a              
          24          predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.  For the same             
          25          reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a                     
          26          person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would                     
          27          improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is                       
          28          obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.                     

                                                    11                                                      

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013