Ex Parte Schlegel et al - Page 7

                Appeal 2007-4098                                                                               
                Application 09/962,887                                                                         
                      Accordingly, based on the factual findings set forth in the Answer and                   
                above, we are constrained to agree with the Examiner that Klabunde renders                     
                the subject matter defined by claims 1 through 4 anticipated within the                        
                meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).                                                                 
                                               OBVIOUSNESS                                                     
                      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 (e.g.,                          
                unexpected results).  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 be 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                   



                                                      7                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013