Appeal 2007-1724
Application 10/284,347
in support of the rejections, and to Appellant’s Brief (filed Aug. 7, 2006) and
Reply Brief (filed Dec. 21, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellant’s Specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellant and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
35 U.S.C. § 103
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) must be based on the following
factual determinations: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; (3) the level of
ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective indicia of non-obviousness.
DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.,
464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966)).
“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 Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 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.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013