Appeal 2007-0407
Application 10/243,796
Claims 1, 2, 6-17, and 21-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Waldrop in view of Palmer; claims 3-5, 18-20, and 31-
38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Waldrop in
view of Palmer and McKague; and claims 1-38 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/153,301 in
view of Waldrop.
The § 103 Rejections
The issue presented for review is as follows:
Has the Examiner demonstrated that a person having ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to place a resin distribution plate position
between the mold tool and the fiber preform in the process of Waldrop
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103?
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. 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 v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396
(2007) quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013