Ex Parte Crone - Page 12

            Appeal 2006-2109                                                                                 
            Application 10/680,678                                                                           

        1          must set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the                            
        2          patent disclosure" so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice                  
        3          of the change. (Citation omitted).                                                        
        4   In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ 2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994).                       
        5       Obviousness                                                                                  
        6   A claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it and the prior art              
        7   are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time                 
        8   the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” 35 U.S.C. §                
        9   103(a) (2000); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1334 (Fed. Cir.                    
       10   2006) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14, (1966)).  In Graham,                  
       11   the Court held that that the obviousness analysis begins with several basic factual              
       12   inquiries: “[(1)] the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; [(2)]             
       13   differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and             
       14   [(3)] the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.” 383 U.S. at 17.  After         
       15   ascertaining these facts, the obviousness of the invention is then determined                    
       16   “against th[e] background” of the Graham factors. Id. at 17-18.                                  
       17       The Supreme Court has provided guidelines for determining obviousness based                  
       18   on the Graham factors. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d                    
       19   1385 (2007).  “A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is                  
       20   likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Id at 1731,            
       21   82 USPQ2d at 1396.  “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design                   
       22   incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same               
       23   field or a different one.  If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable             
       24   variation, §103 likely bars its patentability.”  Id.  For the same reason, “if a                 
       25   technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in                 
       26   the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,                   

                                                     12                                                      


Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013