Ex Parte Whitmyer - Page 10

           Appeal 2007-1305                                                                       
           Application 09/725,394                                                                 

       1      The Federal Circuit has repeatedly recognized that to establish a prima facie       
       2   case of obviousness, the references being combined do not need to explicitly           
       3   suggest combining their teachings.  See e.g., Kahn, 441 F.3d at 987-88, 78             
       4   USPQ2d at 1336 (“the teaching, motivation, or suggestion may be implicit from          
       5   the prior art as a whole, rather than expressly stated in the references”); and In re  
       6   Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“for the           
       7   purpose of combining references, those references need not explicitly suggest          
       8   combining teachings”).  The court recently noted,                                      
       9         An explicit teaching that identifies and selects elements from different         
       10        sources and states that they should be combined in the same way as in            
       11        the invention at issue, is rarely found in the prior art.  As precedent          
       12        illustrates, many factors are relevant to the motivation-to-combine              
       13        aspect of the obviousness inquiry, such as the field of the specific             
       14        invention, the subject matter of the references, the extent to which             
       15        they are in the same or related fields of technology, the nature of the          
       16        advance made by the applicant, and the maturity and congestion of the field.     
       17                                                                                         
       17 In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 1385, 77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006).             
       18                                                                                         
       19                                                                                         
       20     The Supreme Court has recently provided guidelines for determining                  
       21  obviousness based on the Graham factors. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct.        
       22  1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).  The Court stated that “[a] combination of familiar       
       23  elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more       
       24  than yield predictable results. Id. at 1731, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. “When a work is        
       25  available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can      
       26  prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one.  If a person of  
       27  ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its             
       28  patentability.”  Id.  For the same reason, “if a technique has been used to improve    
       29  one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would    

                                                10                                                


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013