Appeal 2007-1905
Reissue Application 10/931,249
Patent 6,444,720 B1
1 Moreover, according to Bayer, even if the requisite "motivation" was
2 present, the prior art would not have suggested Bayer's alleged "unexpected"
3 result of achieving a greater percentage of open cells.
4
5 E. Principles of law
6 A claimed invention is not patentable if the subject matter of the
7 claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
8 in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
9 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co. of
10 Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
11 Facts relevant to a determination of obviousness include (1) the scope
12 and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
13 invention and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art and (4) any
14 relevant objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. KSR,
15 127 S. Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1389; Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.
16 A person having ordinary skill in the art uses known elements and
17 process steps for their intended purpose. Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v.
18 Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969) (radiant-heat burner used for its
19 intended purpose in combination with a spreader and a tamper and screed);
20 Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976) (the involved patent
21 simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had
22 been known to perform); Dunbar v. Myers, 4 Otto (94 U.S.) 187, 195 (1876)
23 (ordinary mechanics know how to use bolts, rivets and screws and it is
24 obvious that any one knowing how to use such devices would know how to
25 arranged a deflecting plate at one side of a circular saw which had such a
26 device properly arranged on the other side).
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013