Appeal 2007-1352
Application 10/406,127
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)), 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 operative question in this "functional approach" is thus
"whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions." Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d
at 1396.
In sustaining a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
the Board may rely on one reference alone without designating it as a new
ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67
(CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444 n.2
(CCPA 1966).
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
to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention,
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013