Appeal 2007-1325
Application 10/065,722
1 E. Principles of law
2 A claimed invention is not patentable if the subject matter of the
3 claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
4 in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct.
5 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
6 383 U.S. 1 (1966), 148 USPQ 459.
7 Facts relevant to a determination of obviousness include (1) the scope
8 and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
9 invention and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art and (4) any
10 relevant objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. KSR, 127
11 S. Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1389, Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.
12 A person having ordinary skill in the art uses known elements and
13 process steps for their intended purpose. Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v.
14 Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969) (radiant-heat burner used for its
15 intended purpose in combination with a spreader and a tamper and screed);
16 Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976) (the involved patent
17 simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had
18 been known to perform); Dunbar v. Myers, 4 Otto (94 U.S.) 187, 195 (1876)
19 (ordinary mechanics know how to use bolts, rivets and screws and it is
20 obvious that any one knowing how to use such devices would know how to
21 arranged a deflecting plate at one side of a circular saw which had such a
22 device properly arranged on the other side).
23 When multiple prior art references are used to reject a claim, then the
24 prior art references should be "analogous." Prior art is "analogous" when a
25 person having ordinary skill in the art would consider it relevant or related to
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013