Appeal No. 2006-1848
Application No. 10/352,360
motivation-to-combine aspect of the
obviousness inquiry, such as the field of the
specific invention, the subject matter of the
references, the extent to which they are in
the same or related fields of technology, the
nature of the advance made by the applicant,
and the maturity and congestion of the field.
In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 1385, 77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed.
Cir. 2006).
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.
We first turn to the general problem confronted by the inventor.
“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
confronting the inventor was to overcome disadvantages of
conventional flatbed trailers for hauling waste and scrap. Specifically,
the inventor recognized that conventional flatbed trailers have the
disadvantage of allowing debris to land on the highway during transit.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007