Appeal 2007-1853
Application 10/987,347
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary consideration (e.g., unexpected
results). 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
is 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) (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.’”).
FACTS AND ANALYSES
We find that Tanaka teaches a method of fabricating molded
adsorbents from a mixture of adsorbent particles having an average particle
diameter of 0.1 µm to 200 um, fine plastic particles having an average
particle size of 0.1 to 100 µm and reinforcing fibers (page 3, ll. 43-44 and
page 4, ll. 3-24). We find that these adsorbent particles, fine plastic
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013