Ex Parte Venegas - Page 4

            Appeal 2007-1219                                                                                 
            Application 10/798,635                                                                           

            limitation (i.e., each element) of a claim. Id. In addition, “[i]t is well settled that a        
            prior art reference may anticipate when the claim limitations not expressly found in             
            that reference are nonetheless inherent in it.”  Id.                                             
                   “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                
            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:                                                                                       

                                                     4                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013