Ex Parte Bussiere - Page 5



             Appeal 2007-1313                                                                                    
             Application 10/162,098                                                                              
                                            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 explained, “[o]ften, it will be necessary for a                     
             court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands                 
             known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background                     
             knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to                   
             determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in                     
             the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.”  Id. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.                    
             The Court noted that “[t]o facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.”               
             Id., citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)                    
             (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory                        

                                                       5                                                         



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013