Ex Parte McBrearty et al - Page 16

                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                    

                                                      16                                                       

Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013