Appeal 2007-0053
Application 10/225,829
the art.” Kahn, 441 F.3d at 987-88, 78 USPQ2d at 1336 (quoting In re Kotzab, 217
F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
In addition to considering whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, we
must also determine whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of
success in doing so. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
229 F.3d 1120, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Obviousness does not require absolute
predictability of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.3d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “For
obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of
success.” Id. (citing In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 897, 225 USPQ 645, 651-52 (Fed.
Cir. 1985); and In re Clinton, 527 F.2d 1226, 1228, 188 USPQ 365, 367 (CCPA
1976)).
ANALYSIS
Both Bird and Yanagisawa relate to flexible tapes in which electrical
components are housed in apertures formed in the tape (Findings of Fact 1 and 5).
The tapes of both Bird and Yanagisawa are subjected to being wound about a reel
during handling and use (Findings of Fact 3 and 9). Yanagisawa teaches that to
avoid damage to component leads located in the region of the tape containing the
aperture, a weakened portion is added to the adjacent region of the tape to ensure
that as the tape is wound onto a reel, the tape bends at the weakened area instead of
bending in the region holding the electrical component and leads (Findings of Fact
9 and 10). Bird discloses that its carrier tape can be used for transporting and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013