Appeal 2007-0706 Application 09/905,172 matter of a claim is 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.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006); 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.”); 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.’”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-07, 160 USPQ 809, 811-812 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom . . .”). VII. ANALYSIS The Examiner’s rejections all hinge upon the combinability of primary reference Huang and secondary reference Hasegawa as the Appellants’ arguments are limited to these two references. In essence, the Appellants only contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to employ the claimed CVD organic layer as the organic layer of 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013