Appeal No. 94-4129
Application 07/953,439
“A patent may not be obtained . . . if the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior
art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988),
teaches, 837 F.2d at 1074, 5 USPQ2d at 1598:
The PTO has the burden under section 103 to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. . . . It can satisfy
this burden only by showing some objective teaching in
the
prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art would lead that individual to
combine the relevant teachings of the references.
The consistent criterion for determining obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is whether the prior art would have
reasonably suggested the claimed invention to one of ordinary
skill in the art with reasonable expectation of achieving
success. To resolve the issue, the full field of the
invention must be considered. The person having ordinary skill
is charged with knowledge of the entire body of technological
literature, including that which
leads to and that which leads away from the claimed invention.
In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529,
1531-32 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007