Appeal 2006-3272
Application 09/789,149
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, 1740-741, 82 USPQ2d
1385, 1396 (2007) quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d
1329, 1336-337 (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.”)
Claim 1
Kaneko discloses an unleaded gasoline composition described as
being useful as an automotive fuel. The composition can include, inter alia,
benzene and diisopropylbenzene as constituents thereof in amounts
overlapping the amounts for these components required in the representative
claim 1 composition (Kaneko, Cl. 1, ¶¶ 0001, 0004, 0011, 0012, 0014, 0036,
0058-0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to select benzene and diisopropylbenzene from among
the available gasoline components disclosed by Kaneko for use as
constituents of a gasoline composition simply by following the teachings of
Kaneko.
Moreover, it is well settled that when the prior art discloses a range
that overlaps or touches on a claimed range, the claimed range is rendered
prima facie obvious. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343-344, 74
USPQ2d 1951, 1954-955 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013