Appeal 2007-0107
Application 10/013,885
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any secondary consideration (e.g., the
problem solved). 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 is obvious] need not seek out precise teachings directed to
the specific subject 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,
1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (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.”). The analysis supporting obviousness,
however, should be made explicit and should “identify a reason that would
have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
elements” in the manner claimed. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1732, 82 USPQ2d at
1389.
Hardy and Susi disclose a number of triazine compounds are useful in
protecting polymeric materials from deterioration due to exposure to
ultraviolet light. Merely because Hardy and Susi disclose a variety of
effective triazine compounds does not render any particular formulation less
obvious. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10
USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989). From our perspective, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at a compound embraced by
compounds employed in representative appealed claim 1 by simply
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013