Appeal No. 2006-0673 Page 18
Application No. 09/919,555
moieties were attached to the substrate, and suggested storage conditions
relating to the molecular moieties (see specification, ¶ 0052).
(Reply Br. at 20.)
"In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the representative claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claim would have been obvious." Ex Parte Massingill,
No. 2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *2 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004). Having determined
what subject matter is being claimed, supra, "the next inquiry is whether the subject
matter would have been obvious." Id., at *3.
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 USPQ2d 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34
USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007