Appeal 2007-3258
Application 10/916,195
1 relevant objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. KSR, 127
2 S. Ct. at 1734; 82 USPQ2d at 1388, Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.
3 A person having ordinary skill in the art uses known elements and
4 process steps for their intended purpose. Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v.
5 Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969) (radiant-heat
6 burner used for its intended purpose in combination with a spreader and a
7 tamper and screed); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ
8 449, 452-53 (1976) (the involved patent simply arranges old elements with
9 each performing the same function it had been known to perform); Dunbar
10 v. Myers, 4 Otto (94 U.S.) 187, 195 (1876) (ordinary mechanics know how
11 to use bolts, rivets and screws and it is obvious that any one knowing how to
12 use such devices would know how to arrange a deflecting plate at one side
13 of a circular saw which had such a device properly arranged on the other
14 side).
15 When multiple prior art references are used to reject a claim, then the
16 prior art references should be "analogous." Prior art is "analogous" when a
17 person having ordinary skill in the art would consider it relevant or related to
18 the invention sought to be patented. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 229,
19 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976) (data processing system used in large business
20 organization found to be analogous to inventor's data process system used in
21 banking industry); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 35 (1966) (where
22 inventor was attempting to solve mechanical closure problem, liquid
23 containers having pouring spouts found to be analogous to an inventor's
24 pump spray insecticide bottle cap); Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic
25 Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 91-92, 51 USPQ 272, 276 (1941) (thermostat to
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013