Appeal 2007-0305
Application 10/067,186
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the 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 v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
“Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of
multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or
present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether
there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
claimed” (id. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Finally, Appellants contend that “[a]n even more compelling reason
that the combination is improper . . . is that Giannett[a] [ ] does not disclose
a disposable filtration bag” (id. at 9).
Nevertheless, we have already considered Appellants’ argument that
Giannetta does not describe a disposable filtration bag, and are not
persuaded for the reason discussed above.
We find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that the invention of
claim 5 would have been obvious over the cited prior art. As indicated
above, remaining claims 6-11, 13, 14, 16-45, 48, and 51-64 stand or fall with
claim 5. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 5-11, 13, 14, 16-45, 48, and
51-64 under 35 U.S.C. § is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013