Appeal 2007-2107
Application 10/190,123
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary
skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere
of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). “[A]nalysis
[of whether the subject matter of a claim is obvious] 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 Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007), quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The
analysis supporting obviousness should be made explicit and should
“identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
art to combine the elements” in the manner claimed. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1731, 82 USPQ2d at 1389.
Applying the preceding legal principles to the factual findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has properly stated an
analysis identifying reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have combined the elements in the manner claimed. As shown by factual
findings (1) and (2) listed above, and acknowledged by Appellant as known
in the art (Br. 14), we determine that the formation of plastic carriers in
adjacent rows and ranks would have been well within the ordinary skill in
this art. As shown by factual findings (3) through (6) listed above, we
determine that Jackson teaches the benefits and advantages of processing
web material in full width, with partial separation leaving connected
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013