Appeal 2007-3147
Application 10/072,435
(4) Simons discloses sand paper with divisional score lines so that
pieces can be torn off leaving the remaining portions intact for
future use (1:25-29 and 48-61);
(5) Pearce discloses sand paper that can be used with several different
models of sanding machine, with an array of punch-out holes
arranged to correspond with the dust extraction devices of
different sanding machines (Abstract; Fig. 1; col. 1, ll. 37-40 and
45-54; col. 2, ll. 15-20 and 50-62); and
(6) Pearce teaches that the sand paper sheets may be provided in full-
size sheets with separable or frangible perforated delineations
dividing the sheet into the conventional one-third, one-half, or
one-quarter sheet sizes (col. 3, ll. 28-37; see Fig. 4).
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. See Graham v.
John Deere of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
“[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim is 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 In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-07, 160 USPQ
809, 811-12 (CCPA 1969) (“[I[t is proper to take into account not only
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013