Appeal 2007-1917
Application 10/222,660
fasteners, wing nuts, Velcro, bungee cords, elastically-contracted edges
on the signage, or “any other suitable means … so long as it allows for
the display face 24 of the signage to be attached and detached easily”
(Specification 7:3-10).
19. Boeniger’s fasteners (i.e., rail-like protrusion 5, spring 6, and eye 8) are
equivalent to the structure described in the Appellant’s Specification,
e.g., bungee cords, for the “fastening means” of claim 6.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the
subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of
skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). See
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013