Ex Parte Kim et al - Page 4

                Appeal 2007-1904                                                                               
                Application 10/790,081                                                                         
                      The Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s decision rejecting the                         
                claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).                                                     

                 FACTUAL FINDINGS, PRINCIPLES OF LAW, ISSUE, and ANALYSIS                                      
                      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 (e.g.,                          
                unexpected results).  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 be 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, 1740-741, 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 any                        
                specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’”).                                     

                                                      4                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013