Appeal 2007-3958
Application 10/611,229
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Kim in view of Sato.2
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable
over Kim in view of Sato and Gardner.
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellant’s arguments. Therefore, we
AFFIRM the § 103 rejections presented in this appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the record, as well as those reasons set forth below.
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. Graham v.
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 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,
2 We will refer to the English-language translation of the Sato document that
has been presented in the present record.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013