Appeal 2006-2709
Application 10/254,295
We refer to the Brief and Answer for the respective positions of
Appellant and the Examiner. We affirm the stated rejection for the reasons
set forth in the Answer. Moreover, we are in substantially complete
agreement with the Examiner’s fact finding and the rebuttal of Appellant's
arguments set forth in the Brief, as presented in the Answer. Accordingly,
we adopt the Examiner’s position, as set forth in the Answer, as our own and
add the following for emphasis only.
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) any 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 is 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. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)
quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1396 (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 the references sought to be
combined, but may be found in any number of sources, including common
knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself.”).
The analysis supporting obviousness, however, should be made explicit and
should “identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013