Appeal 2007-1942
Application 10/368,975
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
which said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C § 103(a).
In determining whether claimed subject matter would have been
obvious, we take into consideration (1) the scope and content of the prior
art, (2) any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, (3)
the level of skill in the art, and (4) any relevant objection evidence of
obviousness or non-obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct.
1727, 1731, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1389 (2007), Graham v. John Deere Co. of
Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). The references of record may be
relied upon to show the level of skill in the art. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573,
1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1395,
(2007).
We have considered only those arguments made before us in coming
to our decision. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)
(1) (vii) (2004).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013