Ex Parte Sonoda - Page 5

              Appeal 2007-1809                                                                     
              Application 09/774,013                                                               
                                                                                                  
                    Discussing the question of obviousness of a patent that claims a               
              combination of known elements, the Court in KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127         
              S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1395 (2007) 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.  If the claimed subject matter           
              cannot be fairly characterized as involving the simple substitution of 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 can         
              be based on a showing that “there was an apparent reason to combine the              
              known elements in the fashion claimed.”  Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41,                 
              82 USPQ2d at 1396.  Such a showing requires “some articulated reasoning              
              with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of                   
              obviousness. . . . [H]owever, the analysis 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.”  Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d         

                                                5                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013