Appeal 2007-0756
Application 10/652,853
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ. KSR Int’l., 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
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.
Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. We must ask whether the improvement is
more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions. Id.
To merely employ the known damper technology taught by Fujita in
the hydraulic braking system of Nohira to fill in the details not specified by
Nohira involves only routine skill in the art and common sense and does not
require innovation. The use of such known damper technology in the
hydraulic braking system of Nohira according to its established function
within a hydraulic braking system, as disclosed by Fujita, would yield only
predictable results. We conclude that the combined teachings of Nohira and
Fujita reasonably support the Examiner’s determination that the subject
matter of claims 7 and 8 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of Appellants’ invention. The rejection of claims 7 and 8
is sustained.
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013