Ex parte IVE - Page 9

          Appeal No. 1999-1491                                                        
          Application No. 08/386,670                                                  

          device since Ledesma already incorporates restraining straps                
          (24).  Furthermore, appellant urges that adding a restraining               
          strap across Ledesma's channel would interfere with access to               
          the individual's back and lumbar region during surgery.                     

               We disagree with appellant.  The Court of Appeals for the              
          Federal Circuit and its predecessor, the Court of Customs and               
          Patent Appeals, have provided us with the following guidance                
          for evaluating what would have been obvious within the meaning              
          of 35 U.S.C.  103.  The question under 35 U.S.C.  103(a) is               
          not merely what the references expressly teach, but what they               
          would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at                 
          the time the invention was made.  See Merck & Co., Inc. v.                  
          Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d                   
          1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425,               
          208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).  While there must be some                    
          suggestion or motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art               
          to combine the teachings of the references, it is not                       
          necessary that such to be found in the four corners of the                  
          references themselves; a conclusion of obviousness may be made              
          from common knowledge and common sense of the person of                     

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007