Appeal 2007-1925
Application 09/391,869
21. Because Wyant discloses that the indexing member may be formed
from any conventional stationary paper (Finding of Fact 9), the two-
ply embodiment of Wyant, or the two-ply seams of Dick combined
with the single pocket arrangement of Wyant, would inherently be
capable of passing through a copier or printer in sequence with a sheet
of paper (Finding of Fact 6).
Principles of Law Relating to Obviousness
“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
also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 (“While the sequence of these
questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue
to define the inquiry that controls.”)
In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in granting a
patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,” id. at 1739, 82
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013