Appeal 2006-2429
Application 09/999,580
1 establish that it would have been obvious to combine those elements. United
2 States v. Adams, id; Smith Indus. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Vital Signs, Inc.,
3 183 F.3d 1347, 1356, 51 USPQ2d 1415, 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The
4 Supreme Court, in KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d
5 1385 (2007) stated that “[t]hroughout this Court’s engagement with the
6 question of obviousness, our cases have set forth an expansive and flexible
7 approach ….” KSR Int’l at 1739, 82 USPQ at 1395. The Court emphasized
8 that “the principles laid down in Graham reaffirmed the ‘functional
9 approach’ of Hotchkiss, 11 How. 248.” KSR Int’l at 1738, 82 USPQ2d at
10 1395 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12, 148 USPQ 459, 464
11 (1966) (emphasis added)).
12
13
14 ANALYSIS
15 We begin with the rejection of claims 10-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112
16 (second paragraph) as being indefinite. From the description in fact 1 of the
17 terms "credit cost C," a description of how "credit cost C" is measured, and
18 the description of "maximum risk exposure M," as well as the description of
19 the claimed equation on page 15 of the Specification, we agree with
20 Appellants that an artisan would have understood the scope and meaning of
21 the terms in these claims. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the
22 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (second
23 paragraph). The rejection of claims 10-23 is not sustained.
24 Turning to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
25 as being unpatentable over Basch in view of Tull, we find from facts 2 and 5
26 that as noted by both the Examiner (Answer 4) and Appellants (Br. 18) that
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013