Appeal 2007-0586
Application 10/387,812
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
KSR at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 12.
Additionally, it is quite apparent that a test for analogousness based on
the problem the applicant inventor was faced with is not a proper analysis.
The Court assigned as error that “the Court of Appeals in this case was to
foreclose this reasoning by holding that courts and patent examiners should
look only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve (citation omitted).
The Court of Appeals failed to recognize that the problem motivating the
patentee may be only one of many addressed by the patent’s subject matter.
The question is not whether the combination was obvious to the patentee but
whether the combination was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the
art.” KSR at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 16.
ANALYSIS
As noted above, Appellant’s sole argument with respect to the
§ 103 rejections is that Laufer is not from an analogous art. As further noted
above, the Supreme Court has recently reviewed the obviousness standard.
It is apparent from the decision that the Court viewed the proper analysis
under § 103 in a more functional manner than has the Federal Circuit. The
Supreme Court has established that one error of the Federal Circuit has been
to restrict the problem which forms the basis of the obviousness analysis to
the problem faced by the inventor. The Court has determined that Patent
Examiners should not look solely at the problem that the Applicants were
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013