Appeal 2007-1902
Application 09/398,006
and Kohno teaches that such coating rubber resists cord buckling and
breakup.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in this art routinely following the
combined teachings of Farnsworth, Gaudin, and Kohno would have
reasonably arrived at the claimed pneumatic radial tire encompassed by
claims 1, 5, and 24, including each and every limitation thereof arranged as
required therein, without recourse to Appellants’ Specification. See, e.g.,
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395
(2007) (a patent claiming a combination of elements known in the prior art is
obvious if the improvement is no more than the predictable use of the prior
art elements according to their established functions); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 985-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1334-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Dow Chem.
Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988);5 In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).6
5 The consistent criterion for determination of obviousness is
whether the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art that [the claimed process] should be carried out
and would have a reasonable likelihood of success, viewed in
light of the prior art. [Citations omitted] Both the suggestion
and the expectation of success must be founded in the prior art,
not in the applicant’s disclosure.
Dow Chem., 837 F.2d at 473, 5 USPQ2d at 1531.
6 The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881.
23
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013