Ex Parte Simes - Page 5

                  Appeal 2007-1724                                                                                           
                  Application 10/284,347                                                                                     

                         Discussing the question of obviousness of a claimed combination of                                  
                  elements of prior art, KSR explains:                                                                       
                         When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design                                           
                         incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,                                     
                         either in the same field or a different one.  If a person of                                        
                         ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103                                         
                         likely bars its patentability.  For the same reason, if a technique                                 
                         has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary                                       
                         skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar                                      
                         devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless                                      
                         its actual application is beyond his or her skill.  Sakraida [v. AG                                 
                         Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449 (1976)] and                                                   
                         Anderson's-Black Rock [Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S.                                       
                         57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969)] are illustrative—a court must ask                                          
                         whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of                                         
                         prior art elements according to their established functions.                                        
                  KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.  Where, on the other hand, the                                 
                  claimed subject matter involves more than the simple substitution, one                                     
                  known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to                                  
                  a piece of prior art ready for the improvement, a holding of obviousness                                   
                  must be based on “an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the                                  
                  fashion claimed.”  KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.  That is,                                   
                  “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning                                  
                  to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”  Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82                              
                  USPQ2d at 1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329,                                     
                  1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).  However, it is not necessary to look only to the                                  
                  problem the patentee was trying to solve; “any need or problem known in                                    
                  the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can                             
                  provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed,” KSR,                                   
                  127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (emphasis added).                                                    


                                                              5                                                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013