Ex Parte Karwowski et al - Page 9

                Appeal 2007-0726                                                                                
                Application 10/264,561                                                                          
                       When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design                                
                       incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,                          
                       either in the same field or a different one.  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.                                       
                KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.  When the issue is whether a                        
                combination of known prior art elements is obvious, the operative question                      
                is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art                       
                elements according to their established functions.”  Id.                                        
                       The Supreme Court made clear that “[f]ollowing these principles may                      
                be more difficult in other cases than it is here because the claimed subject                    
                matter may involve more than the simple substitution of one known element                       
                for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior                    
                art ready for the improvement.”  Id.  In that case, a reason for making the                     
                combination supported by specific reasoning with a rational underpinning is                     
                required.  Id.  The Court explained, “[o]ften, it will be necessary for a court                 
                to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands                   
                known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the                            
                background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the                         
                art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to                          
                combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.”                      
                KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.  The Court noted that “[t]o                      
                facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.  Id.  However, “the                   
                analysis 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                  

                                                       9                                                        

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013