Appeal 2007-1283
Application 09/772,477
the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her
skill.
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
This reasoning is applicable here. We do not agree with Appellants’
assertion that the Examiner has impermissibly engaged in hindsight in
formulating the rejection. In contrast, we find the Examiner’s proffered
combination of Wani and Kida reasonably teaches and/or suggests
Appellants’ claimed invention in terms of known elements that would have
been combined by an artisan having common sense using known methods to
achieve a predictable result (See discussion of Wani and Kida supra). “The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Leapfrog
Enter., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687,
1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739-40, 82 USPQ2d at
1395 (2007)). “One of the ways in which a patent's subject matter can be
proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a
known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
patent's claims.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Thus, when we take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have employed, we conclude the
Examiner has articulated an adequate reasoning with a rational underpinning
that reasonably supports the legal conclusion of obviousness. For at least the
aforementioned reasons, we conclude the Examiner has met the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we will sustain
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013