Appeal 2007-1885
Application 11/000,309
The issue presented for review is as follows:
Has the Examiner reasonably determined that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to form a sterile work chamber
comprising a robot wherein a gas is supplied from outside of the sterile work
chamber to the interior of the robot to establish gas circulation through the
interior of the robot which is discharged to the outside of the robot within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103? On this record, we answer this question in
the affirmative.
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) 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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013