Appeal 2007-1772
Application 10/672,750
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any 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 v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82
USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); 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.’”). The analysis supporting obviousness, however,
should be made explicit and should “identify a reason that would have
prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements” in
the manner claimed. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1731, 81 USPQ2d at 1389.
Here, Appellants do not dispute that Pai discloses or suggests an
integrated circuit including at least two semiconductor die arranged in a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013