Appeal 2007-1340 Application 09/996,125 updating system transaction files for each department of the organization). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be "more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art," id. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. In particular, the Supreme Court emphasized that "the principles laid down in Graham reaffirmed the 'functional approach' of Hotchkiss, 11 How. 248 [(1850)]." KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12, 148 USPQ 459, 464 (1966) (emphasis added)), and reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." Id. The Court explained: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The operative question in this "functional approach" is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use 16Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013