Appeal 2007-0994
Application 10/171,358
on or otherwise secured to their ends 60a enlarging the ends and preventing them
from being pulled through the slots 75a and 75b between pie-shaped jaw members
75 (Judkins, col. 4, ll. 42-50). Judkins is concerned with a possibility that children
may be strangled by the lift cords 60. Thus, Judkins provides connector 61 that
will separate as shown in Figure 10 when the forces on the lift cords 60 have
lateral components.
ISSUE
The sole issue for our consideration in this appeal is the prima facie
obviousness of claims 1, 4, 5, 36-38, 40, 47, and 48.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the
subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of
skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). See
also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 (“While the sequence of these
questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue
to define the inquiry that controls.”) 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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013