Ex Parte Booker - Page 4

                 Appeal 2007-0910                                                                                      
                 Application 10/108,807                                                                                

                 the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take                             
                 account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in                       
                 the art would employ.”  KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41,                        
                 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78                                 
                 USPQ2d 1329, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also DyStar Textilfarben                                   
                 GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361, 80                                
                 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“The motivation need not be found in                               
                 the references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of                               
                 sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the                                 
                 nature of the problem itself.”); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ                           
                 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)(“Having established that this knowledge was in the                               
                 art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a                       
                 conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of                                  
                 the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion                       
                 in a particular reference.’”).  The common knowledge imputed to the level                             
                 of one of ordinary skill in the art includes the Appellant’s admission                                
                 regarding what was known at the time of the invention.  See In re Nomiya,                             
                 509 F.2d 566, 570-71, 184 USPQ 607, 611-12 (CCPA 1975) (the admitted                                  
                 prior art in an applicant’s Specification may be used in determining the                              
                 patentability of a claimed invention); see also In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501,                            
                 503, 134 USPQ 256, 257-58 (CCPA 1962).                                                                
                        Here, there is no dispute that the prior art references relied upon by                         
                 the Examiner teaches or would have suggested “[a] spun-bonded nonwoven                                
                 fabric [wipe]…comprised of continuous multi-component fibers that are at                              
                 least partially split along their length into individual components fibers….”                         


                                                          4                                                            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013