Appeal 2007-1486
Application 10/339,003
In deciding this appeal, we have considered only the following: (a) the
10/339,003 specification, (b) the final rejection mailed 11 January 2006, (c)
the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed 12 June 2006, (d) the Examiner's
Answer ("Answer") mailed 28 August 2006, (e) the Reply Brief ("Reply
Br.") filed 27 October 2006, (f) Smith, (g) Bafford, (h) Isoda and (i) claims
1-10 on appeal.
The rejections under review in this appeal are:
Claims 1, 2 and 4-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Bafford in view of Isoda. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bafford in view of Isoda, as applied to
claim 1, and further in view of Smith.
We affirm.
II. Obviousness
A claimed invention is not patentable if the subject matter of the
claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,
82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383
U.S. 1 (1966).
Facts relevant to a determination of obviousness include (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) relevant
objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at
1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1389; Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.
A person having ordinary skill in the art uses known elements and
process steps for their intended purpose. Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013