Appeal 2007-0705
Application 10/431,127
372 F.2d 566, 567-68, 152 USPQ 618, 619 (CCPA 1967) (express
suggestion to interchange methods which achieve the same or similar results
is not necessary to establish obviousness). Indeed, this result obtains on
these facts even though Vaghi, Gillespie, and Vela are not directed to the
same subject matter as Artwick and Reibold. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) quoting
Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988, 78 USPQ2d at 1336-337 (“[A]nalysis [of whether the
subject matter of a claim would have been obvious] need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”); see also DyStar
Textilfarben GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1361, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“The motivation need
not be found in the references sought to be combined, but may be found in
any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a
whole, or the nature of the problem itself.”); Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208
USPQ at 881; In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549
(CCPA 1969)(“Having established that this knowledge was in the art, the
examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a
conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of
the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion
in a particular reference.’”).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Artwick, Reibold, Vaghi, Gillespie, and Vela with
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013