Appeal 2007-1983 Application 09/800,366 rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). Discussing the question of obviousness of a patent that claims a combination of known elements, KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) explains: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449 (1976)] and Anderson's-Black Rock[, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969)] are illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. If the claimed subject matter cannot be fairly characterized as involving the simple substitution of 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 can be based on a showing that “there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed.” Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Such a showing requires “some articulated reasoning 10Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013