Appeal 2007-0949
Application 10/081,312
improvement is more than the predictable use of the prior art elements
according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation of the prior art, § 103
likely bars its patentability. Id. In many cases a person of ordinary skill will
be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a
puzzle. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Generally, it would
have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop workable or
even optimum ranges for art-recognized, result-effective parameters. In re
Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-1937 (Fed. Cir.
1990); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980);
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the Examiner does not dispute that the claimed
density and purity are not disclosed by the prior art (Answer 19). Rather, the
Examiner maintains that the disclosures of the prior art, taken as a whole, are
such that the claimed density and purity would have been obvious (Answer
19). We agree.
The Examiner sets-forth the disclosures of Toyoda, Ohashi, Itoh,
Tomita, and Morton relied upon in the body of the rejection of claims 1-7,
10-12, 18, and 19, and in the “Response to Arguments” section of the
Answer (Answer 4-9 and 19-21). We adopt the Examiner’s presentation of
the disclosures of the Toyoda, Ohashi, Itoh, Tomita, and Morton patents and
his reasoning for combining the patents as our own and refer to them in our
discussion of the § 103 rejection of claims 1-7, 10-12, 18, and 19 below.
As the Examiner indicates on pages 4-9 and 19-21 of the Answer, the
Toyoda, Ohashi, Itoh, Tomita, and Morton disclosures would have suggested
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013