Ex Parte Seshadri et al - Page 9

                Appeal 2007-0474                                                                                 
                Application 10/692,885                                                                           
           1    that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the                       
           2    invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said                    
           3    subject matter pertains.’”  KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,                     
           4    1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).  The question of obviousness is                               
           5    resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the                     
           6    scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed                      
           7    subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where               
           8    in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.  Graham v. John Deere Co.,                      
           9    383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).  See also KSR, 127 S. Ct. at                        
          10    1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 (“While the sequence of these questions might be                         
          11    reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the                    
          12    inquiry that controls.”)                                                                         
          13           In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in                             
          14    granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior                        
          15    art,” id. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which                       
          16    a patent might be determined to be obvious.  In particular, the Supreme                          
          17    Court emphasized that “the principles laid down in Graham reaffirmed the                         
          18    ‘functional approach’ of Hotchkiss, 11 How. 248.”  KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739,                      
          19    82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12                               
          20    (1966) (emphasis added)), and reaffirmed principles based on its precedent                       
          21    that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is                       
          22    likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”  Id.                  
          23    The Court explained:                                                                             
          24                 When a work is available in one field of endeavor,                                  
          25                 design incentives and other market forces can                                       
          26                 prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a                              
          27                 different one.  If a person of ordinary skill can                                   
          28                 implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars                                 

                                                       9                                                         

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013