Appeal No. 2005-0247 Page 7
Application No. 10/171,657
b. Obviousness Determination
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. The question of obviousness is
"based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches
explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1696
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459,
467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Of course,
"'[e]very patent application and reference relies to some extent upon knowledge of
persons skilled in the art to complement that [which is] disclosed. . . .'" In re Bode, 550
F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538,
543, 179 USPQ 421, 424 (CCPA 1973)). Those persons "must be presumed to know
something" about the art "apart from what the references disclose." In re Jacoby, 309
F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962).
Here, Campbell "provide[s] a thermal drop-on-demand ink jet print head. . . ."
Col. 2, l. 13. Because the reference explains that "a heater is selectively energized to
form a 'bubble' in the adjacent ink," col. 1, ll. 12-13, and "[t]he rapid growth of the bubble
causes an ink drop to be ejected from a nearby nozzle," id. at ll. 13-14, we find
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007