Appeal 2007-0835
Application 09/950,778
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.); see also In re
OmeprazolePatent Litigation, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 1175673, at 9 (Fed.
Cir. 2007)(holding it obvious to substitute one known alkaline reacting
compound (ARC) for another where each was known to stabilize
omeprazole).
With regard to the issue of whether one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to roughen the surface of Yamane’s protective
layer to a level between 2 and 10 microns, we also find that the
preponderance of the evidence supports the determination of the Examiner.
The contacting surface of Yamane’s screen is intended to contact the X-ray
film in the same manner as the “foil” of Van Landeghem and is subject to
the same problem, i.e, air pockets upon loading of the X-ray film and
stickiness upon unloading. Therefore, the use of the roughened surface
suggested by Van Landeghem in the screen of Yamane would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in art because it would have been expected
to solve the air pocket and stickiness problem known in the art. See KSR,
127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (“One of the ways in which a
patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed
at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious
solution encompassed by the patent's claims.”); see also In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“consider
what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art,
and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested
to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013