Appeal 2007-1993
Application 10/277,432
pierce the film that forms the container as recited in the present claims”
(Br. 11).1 Regarding the perforating spike disclosed by Richmond,
Appellants argue that “the spike 22 is not . . . movably attached to [the] port
24. . . . Moreover, the port 24 to which the conventional spike 22 attaches
has no releasably attached tab, the removal of which permits the spike 22 to
pierce the container 10” (Reply Br. 4-5).2
We note, as cited in MPEP § 2144.04, that a one-piece structure
formed of a plurality of prior art elements has been held unpatentable
because using a single construct instead of a multi-element structure was
considered “merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” In re Larson,
340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). We also note that the
United States Supreme Court recently stated that the analysis under 35
U.S.C. § 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1731, 82 USPQ2d 1385,
1397 (2007).
In emphasizing this flexible approach to obviousness analyses,
however, the Supreme Court cautioned that “rejections on obviousness
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at
1 Appeal Brief filed October 12, 2006.
2 Reply Brief filed January 12, 2007.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013