Ex Parte Gusler et al - Page 8

            Appeal 2007-1867                                                                                  
            Application 09/864,113                                                                            

        1          substantial utility or of how to use for such purpose a compound                           
        2          produced by a fully disclosed process is, under the present state of the                   
        3          law, entirely adequate to anticipate a claim to either the product or the                  
        4          process and, at the same time, entirely inadequate to support the                          
        5          allowance of such a claim.”  Id. at 1405; see Schoenwald, 964 F.2d at                      
        6          1124; In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 563-64 (CCPA 1978).  The reason                          
        7          is that section 112 “provides that the specification must enable one                       
        8          skilled in the art to ‘use’ the invention whereas [section] 102 makes                      
        9          no such requirement as to an anticipatory disclosure.”  (Citations                         
       10          omitted).                                                                                  
       11   Rasmusson v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1325, 75 USPQ2d 1297,                       
       12   1302 (Fed. Cir. 2000).                                                                            
       13   Obviousness                                                                                       
       14          A claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it and the                  
       15   prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at                 
       16   the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.”  35                
       17   U.S.C. § 103(a) (2000); KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d                     
       18   1385 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14, 148 USPQ 459, 465                       
       19   (1966).                                                                                           
       20          In Graham, the Court held that that the obviousness analysis is bottomed on                
       21   several basic factual inquiries: “[(1)] the scope and content of the prior art are to be          
       22   determined; [(2)] differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be             
       23   ascertained; and [(3)] the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.”  383           
       24   U.S. at 17, 148 USPQ at 467.  See also KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. at 1734              
       25   82 USPQ2d at 1391.  “The combination of familiar elements according to known                      
       26   methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable                       
       27   results.”  KSR, at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.                                                       
       28          “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and                  
       29   other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in a                 

                                                      8                                                       


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

Last modified: September 9, 2013