Ex Parte Hernandez et al - Page 6

               Appeal 2007-3548                                                                            
               Application 10/627,947                                                                      
               John Deere Co., 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, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)                       
               quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (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.’”);           
               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 specific teachings of the              
               references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would                       
               reasonably be expected to draw therefrom . . . .”).  The analysis supporting                
               obviousness, however, should be made explicit and should “identify a reason                 
               that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the               
               elements” in the manner claimed.  KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at                     
               1396.                                                                                       



                                                    6                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013