Appeal 2007-3546
Application 10/418,180
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary consideration (e.g., the
problem solved). 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, 1336-37 (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.’”).
Appellants argue the claims subject to the first stated rejection
together as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as the representative
claim on which we decide the appeal as to this rejection.
Ozaki discloses perpendicular magnetic recording material including a
layered structure including a substrate, at least one intermediate layer, a
magnetic recording layer, a protection layer and a lubricant layer
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013