Appeal 2007-1340
Application 09/996,125
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. "If
a court, or patent examiner, conducts this analysis and concludes the claimed
subject matter was obvious, the claim is invalid under § 103." KSR,
127 S. Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391.
The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim
does not establish nonobviousness. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230,
189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). The issue is "whether the difference between
the prior art and the subject matter in question 'is a difference sufficient to
render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in the applicable
art.'" Dann, 425 U.S. at 228-29, 189 USPQ at 261 (citation omitted)
(finding system for automatic record keeping of bank checks and deposits
obvious in view of nature of extensive use of data processing systems in
banking industry and "closely analogous" patent for an automatic data
processing system used in a large business organization for keeping and
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013