Ex Parte Cifra et al - Page 7

                Appeal 2007-1318                                                                             
                Application 09/726,779                                                                       
                1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,                    
                1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).                                              
                      "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, and (3) the level of skill in the art.  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.").  The Court in Graham further                
                noted that evidence of secondary considerations, such as commercial                          
                success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., "might be                    
                utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the                    
                subject matter sought to be patented."  383 U.S. at 18, 148 USPQ at 467.                     
                      During examination of patent application, a claim is given its broadest                
                reasonable construction consistent with the specification.  In re Prater, 415                
                F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).  "[T]he words of                       
                a claim 'are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.'"                         
                Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed.                       
                Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted).  The "ordinary and                        
                customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have                    

                                                     7                                                       

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013