Appeal 2007-0426
Application 10/145,307
physical storage devices may be included within storage device 14 (col. 4, ll.
47-51).
10. As a failure message from the storage device is received
(Golasky, col. 6, ll. 14-18), the agent module locates and configures an
unassigned logical unit after it determines that the logical unit is not
assigned to the host (id. at col. 6, ll. 25-28).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To reach a conclusion of obviousness under § 103, the Examiner bears
the burden of producing factual basis supported by teaching in a prior art
reference or shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable
demonstration. Our reviewing court requires this evidence in order to
establish a prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Furthermore, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir.
2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981).
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013