Appeal 2007-1365
Reexamination Control 90/006,595
Patent 6,289,548
than that applied by sponge painting. (Id. at col. 11, ll. 62-65).
Moilanen, U.S. Patent 2,994,899
23) Moilanen is directed to a device for painting corners. (Moilanen, col.
1, ll. 8-13).
24) Moilanen describes a pair of sponges that are spaced slightly apart and
mounted to a common annular core. (Id. at col. 2, ll, 2-27 and Fig. 2, part
15).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An invention which would have been obvious is not patentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1745-46, 82
USPQ2d 1385, 1400 (2007). The facts underlying an obviousness inquiry
include:
Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art resolved. Against this background the obviousness
or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such
secondary considerations 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.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). In addressing the
findings of fact, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” KSR at 1739, 82 USQP2d at 1395. As explained in KSR:
One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be
proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013