Appeal 2007-1485
Application 10/943,944
Claims 13-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Higuchi (Answer 4).
Claims 13-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yamanaka (Answer 4-5).
Claims 13-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jarvis in combination with Inaba (Answer 5-6).
Claims 13-14 and 19-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jarvis in combination with Inaba and Lankof (Answer 6-
8).
Principles of Law
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. See Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966). “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim is obvious]
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.” 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). 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.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013