Ex Parte Cote et al - Page 4

              Appeal 2007-1768                                                                     
              Application 10/377,647                                                               

              of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations.  Graham v.           
              John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467                  
              (1966).  “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim would have            
              been obvious] need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific           
              subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the          
              inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would       
              employ.”  KSR Int’l Co.  v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82              
              USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78                   
              USPQ2d 1329, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also DyStar Textilfarben                  
              GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361, 80               
              USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“The motivation need not be found in              
              the references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of              
              sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the                
              nature of the problem itself.”); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ          
              545, 549 (CCPA 1969)(“Having established that this knowledge was in the              
              art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a      
              conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of                 
              the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion      
              in a particular reference.’”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-07, 160          
              USPQ 809, 811-812 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not              
              only specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one          
              skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom . . .”).  The      
              analysis supporting obviousness, however, should be made explicit and                
              should “identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary              



                                                4                                                  

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013