Ex Parte Sato - Page 11

                Appeal 2007-1275                                                                              
                Application 09/824,248                                                                        

                obviousness")).  However, "the analysis need not seek out precise teachings                   
                directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court                  
                can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of                        
                ordinary skill in the art would employ."  Id.  The Court cautioned that "[a]                  
                factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight                  
                bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning."  Id.                  
                at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.                                                                   
                      The Court noted that "[i]n many fields it may be that there is little                   
                discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the                     
                case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design                 
                trends."  KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.  "Under the correct                     
                analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of                   
                invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining                      
                the elements in the manner claimed."  Id. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.  The                    
                Court also noted that "[c]ommon sense teaches . . . that familiar items may                   
                have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a                          
                person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents                
                together like pieces of a puzzle."  Id. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.  "A                       
                person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an                      
                automaton."  Id.                                                                              
                      Furthermore, the Supreme Court explained that "[w]hen there is a                        
                design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite                      
                number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has                   
                good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp."                   
                KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.  "If this leads to the                            


                                                     11                                                       

Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013