Appeal 2007-1978
Application 10/185,702
public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless
of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.”) (citation
omitted).
2. OBVIOUSNESS (Prima Facie)
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18,
148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), stated that the following factual inquiries
underpin any determination of obviousness:
Under § 103, [1] the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; [2] differences between the prior art and the claims
at issue are to be ascertained; and [3] the level of ordinary skill
in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the
obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is
determined. Such [4] secondary considerations as commercial
success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.,
might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding
the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As
indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may
have relevancy.
Where the claimed subject matter involves more than the simple
substitution one known element for another or the mere application of a
known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement, a holding
of obviousness must be based on “an apparent reason to combine the known
elements in the fashion claimed.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1740-41 (2007). That is, “there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013