Ex Parte Bleizeffer et al - Page 12

                Appeal 2007-1417                                                                             
                Application 09/877,536                                                                       

                analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of                  
                invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining                     
                the elements in the manner claimed."  Id. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.  The                   
                Court also noted that "[c]ommon sense teaches . . . that familiar items may                  
                have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a                         
                person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents               
                together like pieces of a puzzle."  Id. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.  "A                      
                person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an                     
                automaton."  Id.                                                                             
                      Furthermore, the Supreme Court explained that "[w]hen there is a                       
                design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite                     
                number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has                  
                good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp."                  
                KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.  "If this leads to the                           
                anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary              
                skill and common sense," id. and, in such an instance "the fact that a                       
                combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103"                   
                (id.).                                                                                       
                      The level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the prior art               
                references.  In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121                       
                (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("Although the Board did not make a specific finding on                     
                skill level, it did conclude that the level of ordinary skill in the art . . . was           
                best determined by appeal to the references of record . . . .  We do not                     
                believe that the Board clearly erred in adopting this approach."); see also                  
                In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91, 198 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) ("the PTO                      


                                                     12                                                      

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013