Appeal 2007-1214
Application 10/272,270
instant application” (Br. 6). Appellants argue that “Buckley does not teach
. . . that a device can be improved by replacing its circular coil springs with
ovoid coil springs,” (id. at 7) and conclude that “[t]herefore, the person of
ordinary skill in the art would not be inclined to use the ovoid coil springs of
Buckley in the conveyor of Figure 3” (id. at 7).
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive.
The United States Supreme Court recently held that “[t]he
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the
importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.”
KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396
(2007). The Court noted that it had previously held “that when a patent
‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had
been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from
such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d
at 1395-96 (quoting Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ
449, 543 (1976)). The Court reasoned that a “patent for a combination
which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions
. . . obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its
monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men.” Id. at
1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (quoting Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v.
Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950)).
In the instant case, the prior art discloses an apparatus that differs
from that of claim 1 only in that it uses a circular, rather than ovoid, coil
spring. Buckley discloses coil springs in various shapes, including ovoid
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013