Appeal No. 2001-0120 Page 3
Application No. 08/695,393
(including sodium lauryl sulfate) to treat burns. See, Brief, Bridging paragraph,
pages 6-71. On this record we are compelled to agree with appellant.
As set forth in In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369-70, 55 USPQ2d 1313,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000):
A critical step in analyzing the patentability of claims pursuant to
section 103(a) is casting the mind back to the time of invention, to
consider the thinking of one of ordinary skill in the art, guided only
by the prior art references and the then-accepted wisdom in the
field. … Close adherence to this methodology is especially
important in cases where the very ease with which the invention
can be understood may prompt one “to fall victim to the insidious
effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the
invention taught is used against its teacher.”
…
Most if not all inventions arise from a combination of old elements.
… Thus, every element of a claimed invention may often be found
in the prior art. … However, identification in the prior art of each
individual part claimed is insufficient to defeat patentability of the
whole claimed invention. … Rather, to establish obviousness based
on a combination of the elements disclosed in the prior art, there
must be some motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability
of making the specific combination that was made by the applicant.
[citations omitted]
In other words, “there still must be evidence that ‘a skilled artisan ... with
no knowledge of the claimed invention, would select the elements from the cited
prior art references for combination in the manner claimed.’” Ecolochem Inc. v.
Southern California Edison, 227 F.3d 1361, 1375, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1075-76
(Fed. Cir. 2000). At best, the prior art relied upon by the examiner mentions the
words anesthetic (including tetracaine), surfactant (including sodium lauryl
sulfate) and burn. The prior art however, fails to suggest the specific
combination of elements set forth in appellant’s claimed invention.
1 Appellant’s Brief does not contain page numbers. For clarity, we have annotated appellant’s
Brief to include page numbers beginning with the first page, page 1, of the Brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007