Appeal 2007-1755
Application 10/930,047
14. Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a wheel having a single
wheel rim capable of simultaneously supporting at least two tires (Specification
¶ 14). Sorrentino is also directed to wheel structures configured to simultaneously
support at least two tires. As such, Sorrentino is within the same field of endeavor
as the claimed invention (i.e., wheels capable of supporting dual tires).
15. Interior is commonly defined as lying, occurring, or functioning
within the limiting boundaries. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 652
(11th ed. 2005).
16. Appellant’s Specification does not provide any special meaning to the
term interior nor does it utilize the term contrary to its customary meaning.
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) secondary considerations, where in evidence. 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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013