Ex Parte Santos et al - Page 8

            Appeal 2007-1595                                                                                 
            Application 09/751,858                                                                           

        1          issued patents in connection with determinations of infringement and                      
        2          validity.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir.                      
        3          1989); accord In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023                           
        4          (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It would be inconsistent with the role assigned to                     
        5          the PTO in issuing a patent to require it to interpret claims in the same                 
        6          manner as judges who, post-issuance, operate under the assumption                         
        7          the patent is valid.”). Instead, as we explained above, the PTO is                        
        8          obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation                         
        9          during examination.                                                                       
       10       In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d  1827,                 
       11   1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004).                                                                           
       12       Obviousness                                                                                  
       13       These claims are under rejection for obviousness.  A claimed invention is                    
       14   unpatentable if the differences between it and the prior art are “such that the                  
       15   subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was                  
       16   made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2000); In re             
       17   Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383                   
       18   U.S. 1, 13-14, (1966)).  In Graham, the Court held that that the obviousness                     
       19   analysis begins with several basic factual inquiries: “[(1)] the scope and content of            
       20   the prior art are to be determined; [(2)] differences between the prior art and the              
       21   claims at issue are to be ascertained; and [(3)] the level of ordinary skill in the              
       22   pertinent art resolved.” 383 U.S. at 17. After ascertaining these facts, the                     
       23   obviousness of the invention is then determined “against th[e] background” of the                
       24   Graham factors. Id. at 17-18.                                                                    
       25       The Supreme Court has provided guidelines for determining obviousness based                  
       26   on the Graham factors. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d                    
       27   1385 (2007).  “A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is                  
       28   likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Id at 1731,            
                                                     8                                                       


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013