Appeal 2007-0592
Application 10/263,001
1 actuator is irrelevant as Appellant claims “a generally ‘U’-shaped” actuator.
2 Additionally, we note that in Kurano’s Figure 9, base plate 3 and devices 2
3 form what Appellant calls “a proper U-shaped” actuator. Therefore,
4 Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred with respect to this
5 contention.
6
7 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 4 AND 13 UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
8 We make the following new grounds of rejection using our authority
9 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
10 Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
11 unpatentable over Kurano in view of Appellant’s admitted prior art (AAPA).
12 The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148
13 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), stated that three factual inquiries underpin any
14 determination of obviousness:
15 Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be
16 determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at
17 issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the
18 pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the
19 obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is
20 determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial
21 success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.,
22 might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding
23 the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As
24 indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may
25 have relevancy.
26 The Supreme Court reaffirmed and relied upon the Graham three
27 pronged test in its consideration and determination of obviousness in the fact
28 situation presented in KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ2d
29 1385, 1391 (Apr. 30, 2007). The Court stated:
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013