Appeal No. 2005-1173 Page 4
Application No. 10/134,793
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
A critical step in analyzing the patentability of claims pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 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. See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617
(Fed. Cir. 1999). 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." Id. (quoting W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Most if not all inventions arise from a combination of old elements. See In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, every
element of a claimed invention may often be found in the prior art. See id. However,
identification in the prior art of each individual part claimed is insufficient to defeat
patentability of the whole claimed invention. See id. 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007