Appeal 2007-2049
Application 10/475,223
compounds of the type recited in Appellants’ claims (Denki,
General formulas (1) and (2)).
6. Appellants’ Table 1 presents discoloration data for various
combinations of stabilizers. The compounds tested are two
hindered amines and one compound from each of the other
claimed genera of compounds encompassed by the claims
(Specification 25:6 to 26:8 and Table 1).
7. Some of the combinations within the scope of the claims have
lower light stability than some of the combinations outside the
scope of the claims. (Table 1, compare Example 2 (unclaimed
combination) with Example 8 (claim 9 combination)).
C. Principles of Law
“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.”)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013