Ex Parte Ramsey Catan - Page 11

                Appeal 2007-0820                                                                               
                Application 09/734,808                                                                         
           1    necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the               
           2    effects of demands known to the design community or present in the                             
           3    marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having                         
           4    ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an                      
           5    apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by                        
           6    the patent at issue.”  Id. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.  The Court noted                     
           7    that “[t]o facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.  Id. (citing              
           8    In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006))                          
           9    (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere                              
          10    conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning                       
          11    with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of                             
          12    obviousness”).  However, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings                     
          13    directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can               
          14    take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary                    
          15    skill in the art would employ.”  Id. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.                               
          16          The Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39,                      
          17    40, 148 USPQ 479, 480 (1966) is illustrative of the “functional approach” to                   
          18    be taken in cases where the claimed invention is a prior art structure altered                 
          19    by substituting one element in the structure for another known element.                        
          20    KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391.  “The Court [in Adams]                              
          21    recognized that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior                    
          22    art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known                  
          23    in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.                    
          24    383 U.S., at 50-51.”  Id.  Ultimately the Adams Court found the combination                    
          25    at issue not obvious to those skilled in the art because, although the elements                
          26    were known in the prior art, they worked together in an unexpected manner.                     

                                                      11                                                       

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013