Appeal 2006-3398
Application 10/132,199
following group of sheet material and then release them for singling under control
of the controller.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been
established, we are guided by the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), viz., (1) the scope and content of the
prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; and (3)
the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition to our review of the Graham
factors, we also consider “whether a person of ordinary skill in the art, possessed
with the understandings and knowledge reflected in the prior art, and motivated by
the general problem facing the inventor, would have been led to make the
combination recited in the claims.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d
1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). From this it may be determined whether the overall
disclosures, teachings, and suggestions of the prior art, and the level of skill in the
art – i.e., the understandings and knowledge of persons having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention-support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Id.
ANALYSIS
Both prior art references are concerned with moving sheets of paper through
paper handling machines. In the case of Parkander’s apparatus, the goal is to
maintain operation of the laser printer even if the sorting speed of the sorting
device momentarily is insufficient for delivering sheet groups with the same speed
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013