Appeal No. 2007-0507
Application 10/737,051
the applicant's specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Anticipation is a question of fact. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “To anticipate a claim, a prior art
reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly
or inherently.” Id.
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) must be based on the following factual determinations: (1) the
scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) objective
indicia of non-obviousness. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v.
C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966)).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely
to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Leapfrog
Enter., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41,
82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007)). “One of the ways in which a patent's subject
matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013