Appeal 2007-1488
Application 10/809,072
1 of the crystal selector against vertical and/or sideward loading.
2 (Monte ‘468, 6:43-48; Monte ‘469, 6:3-8.)
3 22. Similarly, Burd teaches the use of central column 26 “in the
4 form of a post high strength so as to be able to assume the load
5 otherwise imposed on the crystal selector.” (Burd, 2:41-44;
6 Figures 1-2.)
7
8 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
9 The factual inquiry into whether claimed subject matter would have
10 been obvious includes a determination of: (1) the scope and content of the
11 prior art; (2) the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior
12 art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary consideration
13 (e.g., the problem solved) that may be indicia of (non)obviousness. Graham
14 v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). The Supreme
15 Court of the United States has stated that “[t]he obviousness analysis cannot
16 be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion,
17 and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles
18 and the explicit content of issued patents.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
19 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396, (2007). Rather, “[w]hen
20 there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a
21 finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill
22 has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical
23 grasp.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1732, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
24 “When the PTO shows prima facie obviousness, the burden then shifts
25 to the applicant[s] to rebut.” In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1342, 41 USPQ2d
26 1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Such rebuttal or argument can consist of a
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013