Appeal No. 2000-1587
Application 09/055,254
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The court reasons in
Para-Ordnance Mfg. Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l Inc., 73 F.3d
1085, 1088-89, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239-40 (Fed. Cir. 1995), that
for the determination of obviousness, the court must answer
whether one of ordinary skill in the art who sets out to solve
the problem and who had before him in his workshop the prior
art, would have been reasonably expected to use the solution
that is claimed by the Appellants.
The Federal Circuit further states that motivation,
suggestion or teaching may come explicitly from statements in
the prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
art, or, in some cases the nature of the problem to be solved.
See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617
(Fed. Cir. 1999). However, “the Board must not only assure
that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the
findings are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In
re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002). The court requires evidence for determination of
patentability by clarifying that “common knowledge and common
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007