Ex Parte No Data - Page 20

                Appeal 2007-0694                                                                              
                Reexamination Control 90/006,433                                                              
                Patent 5,428,933                                                                              
                USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).                                                           
                      Additionally, an invention is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if it                
                is obvious.  KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1745-46, 82 USPQ2d                  
                1385, 1400 (2007).  The facts underlying an obviousness inquiry include:                      
                      Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be                           
                      determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at                         
                      issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the                     
                      pertinent art resolved.  Against this background the obviousness                        
                      or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined.  Such                            
                      secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but                           
                      unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give                      
                      light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject                        
                      matter sought to be patented.                                                           
                Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).  In addressing the                        
                findings of fact, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known                  
                methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable                   
                results.”  KSR at 1739, 82 USQP2d at 1395.  As explained in KSR:                              
                      If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable                               
                      variation, §103 likely bars its patentability.  For the same                            
                      reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and                         
                      a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it                           
                      would improve similar devices in the same way, using the                                
                      technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his                        
                      or her skill.  Sakraida and Anderson's-Black Rock are                                   
                      illustrative — a court must ask whether the improvement is                              
                      more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to                        
                      their established functions.                                                            
                KSR at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.  As recognized in KSR, “[a] person of                         
                ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”                    
                KSR at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.                                                               
                      On appeal, Patentee bears the burden of showing that the Examiner                       

                                                     20                                                       

Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013