Ex Parte Shelton - Page 18



            1          The three Graham obviousness factors are squarely based on the                             
            2   statutory language of § 103:  (1) scope and content of the prior art being                        
            3   based on the language "prior art", (2) differences between the subject matter                     
            4   sought to be patented and the prior art being based on the language                               
            5   "differences", and (3) level of ordinary skill being based on the language "a                     
            6   person having ordinary skill in the art."  Unlike the statutory criteria on                       
            7   which the Supreme Court counsels fact-finding, nowhere does the word                              
            8   "motivation" appear in § 103.  What drives the obviousness determination is                       
            9   what one of ordinary skill in the art would have known and would normally                         
          10    have done prior to an applicant's invention.  And, a person of ordinary skill                     
          11    in the art is necessarily "motivated" to use known elements for their intended                    
          12    purpose without any further suggestion to do so.  Section 103 is designed to                      
          13    prevent issuance of patents to inventions which preclude a person having                          
          14    ordinary skill in the art from using known elements for their intended                            
          15    purpose absent some significant reason to the contrary, e.g., an unexpected                       
          16    result.  Thus, as Graham points out in discussing writings of Thomas                              
          17    Jefferson, 383 U.S. at 10:  "A man has a right to use a saw, an axe, a plane                      
          18    separately; may he not combine their uses on the same piece of wood?"   See                       
          19    also Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U.S. 187, 195 (1876) (ordinary mechanics know                            
          20    how to use bolts, rivets and screws and it is obvious that any one knowing                        
          21    how to use such devices would know how to arrange a deflecting plate at                           
          22    one side of a circular saw which had such a device properly arranged on the                       
          23    other side).                                                                                      
          24           In the case before us, a person having ordinary skill in the art seeking                   
          25    to solve a tackiness problem (1) would have known about CAB-O-SILŪ,                               
          26    (2) would have known it was a detackifier, (3) would have known to use it                         
          27    where detackifying is necessary and (4) would therefore have used it to                           

                                                       18                                                         

Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013