Appeal 2006-0153
Application 10/082,635
Kawakami, any one of Kamo, Dieringer, and Clements, and any one of
Ramirez, Ramesh, and Bekele.
The Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting
the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
ISSUE
Would one of ordinary skill in the art have been led to employ
recycled polyester, in lieu of nylon, as an oxygen barrier in the bubble wrap
making process suggested by the combined disclosures of Ottaviano and
either Fox or Kawakami within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
FACTS, PRINCIPLES OF LAW, AND ANALYSES
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires
a determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary consideration (e.g., unexpected
results). Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148
USPQ 459, 467(1966). “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim
would have been obvious] need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82
USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78
USPQ2d 1329, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also DyStar Textilfarben
GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361, 80
USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“The motivation need not be found in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013