Interference No. 103,640
203 F.3d 1305, 1319, 53 USPQ2d 1769, 1778 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(quoting In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1616
(Fed. Cir. 1999)). "The ultimate determination . . . whether an
invention is or is not obvious is a legal conclusion based on
underlying factual inquiries including: (1) the scope and
content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the
prior art; (3) the differences between the claimed invention and
the prior art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness."
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 998, 50 USPQ2d at 1616. The Federal
Circuit further indicated "that the best defense against the
subtle but powerful attraction of a hindsight-based obviousness
analysis is rigorous application of the requirement for a showing
of the teaching or motivation to combine prior art references."
Id. at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617. That suggestion may come from,
inter alia, the teachings of the references themselves and, in
some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. See
Gartside, 203 F.3d at 1319, 53 USPQ2d at 1778 ( citing Pro-Mold &
Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc. , 75 F.3d 1568, 1573,
37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
Since Ausnit ‘787 and Ausnit ‘443 supply to the art the
teaching that the strips carrying the two interlocking members
can be joined in a unitary strip, one with a bent or folded web
between the interlocking members and the other with a seam or
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007