Appeal 2006-2589
Application 10/618,499
Appellants contend that the combination of Diehr and Mente
do not teach or suggest forming articles from lignocellulosic
materials comprising the moisture content limitation of claim 41
(Br. 10).
The issue presented is as follows:
Has with the Examiner reasonably determined that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ
lignocellulosic materials with the moisture content less than about
2% in forming the articles of Diehr, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103? On this record, we answer this question in the affirmative.
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
considerations. 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 Co. 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.,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013