Appeal 2007-0833
Application 10/280,254
of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.”) (internal
citations omitted).
2. OBVIOUSNESS
OBVIOUSNESS (Prima Facie)
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148
USPQ 459, 467 (1966), stated that three factual inquiries underpin any
determination of obviousness:
Under § 103, (1) the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims
at issue are to be ascertained; and (3) the level of ordinary skill
in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the
obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is
determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial
success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.,
might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding
the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As
indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may
have relevancy.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See
also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984). Where the claimed subject matter involves more than the simple
substitution one known element for another or the mere application of a
known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement, a holding
of obviousness must be based on “an apparent reason to combine the known
elements in the fashion claimed.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). That is, “there must be
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013