Ex Parte Bleizeffer et al - Page 11

                Appeal 2007-1417                                                                             
                Application 09/877,536                                                                       

                KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.  The Court explained that:                       
                            [o]ften, it will be necessary . . . to look to                                   
                            interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the                                  
                            effects of demands known to the design                                           
                            community or present in the marketplace; and the                                 
                            background knowledge possessed by a person                                       
                            having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to                                
                            determine whether there was an apparent reason to                                
                            combine the known elements in the fashion                                        
                            claimed by the patent at issue.                                                  

                Id. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.  The Court noted that "[t]o facilitate                    
                review, this analysis should be made explicit."  Id. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at                   
                1396 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.                       
                Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by                      
                mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated                          
                reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of                 
                obviousness")).  However, "the analysis need not seek out precise teachings                  
                directed to the 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."  Id.  The Court cautioned that "[a]                 
                factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight                 
                bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning."  Id.                 
                at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.                                                                  
                      The Court noted that "[i]n many fields it may be that there is little                  
                discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the                    
                case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design                
                trends."  KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.  "Under the correct                    

                                                     11                                                      

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013