Appeal 2006-3265
Application 10/047,670
with brazed connections and thus would not have commended themselves to
an inventor’s attention in considering the problem faced by Appellants,
[w]hen 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.
KSR Int’l., 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. We must ask whether
the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions. Id.
Further, in making a determination with regard to obviousness, we
should not limit ourselves to looking only at the problem Appellants were
trying to solve. The question is not whether the combination was obvious to
Appellants but whether it was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the
art. Thus, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the
field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can
provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR
Int’l., 127 S.Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
In the present case, all of the references applied by the Examiner are
directed to tube couplings and, thus, by their very nature, present many of
the same problems and issues. Turner’s coupling arrangement offers the
advantage that it “will not only serve to couple metallic and non-metallic
substantially rigid tubing but also flexible tubing which can be used at
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013