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