Ex Parte Zehner et al - Page 9

                Appeal 2007-1560                                                                             
                Application 10/680,968                                                                       

                meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103?  On this record, we answer this                                  
                question in the affirmative.                                                                 
                      Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness                            
                requires a determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior                          
                art; (2) the differences between the claimed subject matter and the                          
                prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary                     
                considerations.  Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S.                           
                1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).  “[A]nalysis [of whether the                             
                subject matter of a claim would have been obvious] need not seek                             
                out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the                         
                challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and                         
                creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would                              
                employ.”  KSR Int’l Co.  v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41,                        
                82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,                                
                988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336-337 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also DyStar                              
                Textilfarben GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.,                                  
                464 F.3d 1356, 1361, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“The                              
                motivation need not be found in the references sought to be                                  
                combined, but may be found in any number of sources, including                               
                common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the                             
                problem itself.”); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545,                           
                549 (CCPA 1969)(“Having established that this knowledge was in                               
                the art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the                          
                solicitor, on a conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge                             
                and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without                          


                                                 9                                                           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013