Appeal 2007-1395
Application 10/328,115
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82
USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988,
78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also DyStar Textilfarben
GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361,
80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“The motivation need not be found
in the references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of
sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the
nature of the problem itself.”); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ
545, 549 (CCPA 1969)(“Having established that this knowledge was in the
art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a
conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of
the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion
in a particular reference.’”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-07,
160 USPQ 809, 811-812 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account
not only specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which
one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom...”).
The analysis supporting obviousness, however, should be made explicit and
should “identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary
skill in the art to combine the elements” in the manner claimed. KSR,
127 S.Ct. at 1731, 82 USPQ2d at 1389.
Appellant contends that Lin does not teach or suggest the claimed
invention. Appellant contends that Lin does not teach or suggest that any
reduction in the particulate emissions in an internal combustion engine
would have been expected utilizing the described fuel additive (Br. 9).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013