Appeal No. 2006-1769
Application No. 09/784,292
‘162, Keuhn, Jr., and Sauer, which form the prior art. We also
considered the requirement for a prima facie case of obviousness, as
recently re-stated in In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 78 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed.
Cir. 2006), of a showing of a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to
modify or combine the prior art teaching.
For the reasons discussed below, we find that a person of
ordinary skill in the art, possessed with the understandings and
knowledge reflected in the prior art, and motivated by the general
problem facing the inventor, would have been led to make the
combination recited in the claims.
“In considering motivation in the obviousness analysis, the
problem examined is not the specific problem solved by the invention
but the general problem that confronted the inventor before the
invention was made. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d
1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). In this case, the
general problem to be solved was to make a pant-like absorbent
garment that avoided the problem of having to don or check the status
of the garment by sliding it on and off the wearer while providing an
improved fit and appearance.
Kuen ‘162, Keuhn, Jr., and Sauer each address this problem.
We find that one skilled in the art at the time of the invention would
-13-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007