Appeal 2007-0958
Application 10/807,935
In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in
granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior
art,” id. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which
a patent might be determined to be obvious. In particular, the Supreme
Court emphasized that “the principles laid down in Graham reaffirmed the
‘functional approach’ of Hotchkiss, 11 How. 248.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739,
82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12
(1966) (emphasis added)), and reaffirmed principles based on its precedent
that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id.
The Court explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor,
design incentives and other market forces can
prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
different one. If a person of ordinary skill can
implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely
bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a
technique has been used to improve one device,
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in
the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her
skill.
Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The operative question in this “functional
approach” is thus “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use
of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id.
The Supreme Court stated that there are “[t]hree cases decided after
Graham [that] illustrate this doctrine.” Id. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. “In
United States v. Adams, … [t]he Court recognized that when a patent claims
a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013