Appeal 2007-1548
Application 10/702,346
valley portion 5 of the shaft 3 are press-fit into the through-hole 2 of the
rotor 1, the inner peripheral surface of the through-hole 2 is deformed in a
depressed shape along the series of humps 4 and valleys 5 of the shaft 3 to
intimately mesh the rotor and shaft to create a firm jointing of the two (Ito,
col. 3, ll. 23-46).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the
subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of
skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). See
also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 (“While the sequence of these
questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue
to define the inquiry that controls.”)
In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in granting a
patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,” id. at 1739, 82
USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013