Appeal 2007-2658
Application 10/451,143
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, and 6 through 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of either Yuichi or
Okamoto, and Peker.
The Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s decision rejecting the
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
ISSUES
1. Would the prior art relied upon by the Examiner have rendered
the claimed copper-base amorphous alloy, prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
2. If the prior art relied upon by the Examiner would have
rendered the claimed copper-base amorphous alloy prima facie obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art, would the evidence proffered by the
Appellants be sufficient to rebut the prima facie case?
FACTS, PRINCIPLES OF LAW, AND ANALYSES
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations (e.g.,
unexpected results). Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1,
17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467(1966). “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject
matter of a claim would be obvious] need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013