Appeal 2007-1448
Application 10/601,325
Facts relevant to a determination of obviousness include (1) the scope and
content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed invention and the
prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) any relevant objective evidence of
obviousness or non-obviousness. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18, 148 USPQ at
466-67.
The application of common sense may control the combining of references.
Common sense teaches, however, 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.
KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (finding that during an
obviousness determination, the person of ordinary skill’s attempt to
solve a problem is not limited to only those elements of the prior art
designed to solve the same problem).
ANALYSIS
We begin our analysis by construing claim 1, and specifically the term
“brace.” Reading the claim in light of the specification as interpreted by one of
ordinary skill (see In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70
USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004)), we construe the phrase “a flexurally rigid
connection connecting said first and second sections, wherein said flexurally rigid
connection and said first and second sections are elastically deformable to brace
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013