Appeal 2007-1588
Application 10/964,098
7 and 9 that do not overlap and have their adjacent ends spaced apart
longitudinally to leave more room for welding, again as at 12 in Figure 5.
PRINCIPALS OF LAW
“A claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it 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 pertinent art.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985, 78 USPQ2d 1329,
1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2000)); Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). “The
ultimate determination of whether an invention would have been obvious is
a legal conclusion based on underlying findings of fact.” Id. (citing In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
“In assessing whether subject matter would have been non-obvious
under § 103, the Board follows the guidance of the Supreme Court in
Graham v. John Deere Co. 383 U.S. at 17, 148 USPQ at 467. The Board
determines ‘the scope and content of the prior art,’ ascertains ‘the
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,’ and resolves ‘the
level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.’” Id. (citing Dann v. Johnston, 425
U.S. 219, 226, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976)) (quoting Graham, 383 U.S. at
17, 148 USPQ at 467). “Against this background, the Board determines
whether the subject matter would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the asserted invention.” Id. (citing Graham, 383
U.S. at 17, 148 USPQ 467).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013