Appeal 2007-0388
Application 10/337,459
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l, 127
S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Further, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the
prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by
routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,
235 (CCPA 1955).
When there is a design need or market pressure to
solve a problem and there are a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, a person of
ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known
options within his or her technical grasp. If this
leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the
product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and
common sense. In that instance the fact that a
combination was obvious to try might show that it
was obvious under § 103.
KSR Int’l., 127 S.Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
[It has long been held] that even though
applicant's modification results in great
improvement and utility over the prior art, it may
still not be patentable if the modification was
within the capabilities of one skilled in the art,
unless the claimed ranges "produce a new and
unexpected result which is different in kind and
not merely in degree from the results of the prior
art."
In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
(quoting Aller, 220 F.2d at 456, 105 USPQ at 235).
While neither Stanton nor Harvey specifically addresses the distance
between the fuse and the brake heat sink or the distance the fuse extends
from the wheel structure, both Stanton and Harvey, like Appellants, are
concerned with providing a safety device that is responsive to potentially
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013