Appeal 2006-2827
Application 09/883,893
USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be
determined to be obvious. In particular, the Supreme Court emphasized that “the
principles laid down in Graham reaffirmed the ‘functional approach’ of Hotchkiss,
11 How. 248.” KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12 (1966) (emphasis added)), and reaffirmed
principles based on its precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
yield predictable results.” Id. The Court explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations
of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a
person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. For the same
reason, if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill.
Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The operative question in this “functional
approach” is thus “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id.
The Supreme Court stated that there are “[t]hree cases decided after Graham
[that] illustrate this doctrine.” Id. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. “In United States
v. Adams, … [t]he Court recognized that when a patent claims a structure already
known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for
another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013