Ex Parte Autterson - Page 11

                Appeal 2007-2111                                                                                  
                Application 09/921,204                                                                            

            1   987-88, 78 USPQ2d at 1336 (“the teaching, motivation, or suggestion may                           
            2   be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than expressly stated in the                    
            3   references”); and In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502                         
            4   (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“for the purpose of combining references, those references                      
            5   need not explicitly suggest combining teachings”).  The court recently noted,                     
            6          An explicit teaching that identifies and selects elements from                             
            7          different sources and states that they should be combined in the                           
            8          same way as in the invention at issue, is rarely found in the                              
            9          prior art.  As precedent illustrates, many factors are relevant to                         
          10           the motivation-to-combine aspect of the obviousness inquiry,                               
          11           such as the field of the specific invention, the subject matter of                         
          12           the references, the extent to which they are in the same or                                
          13           related fields of technology, the nature of the advance made by                            
          14           the applicant, and the maturity and congestion of the field.                               
          15    In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 1385, 77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir.                              
          16    2006).                                                                                            
          17        The Supreme Court has provided guidelines for determining obviousness                         
          18    based on the Graham factors. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82                       
          19    USPQ2d 1385 (2007).  “A combination of familiar elements according to                             
          20    known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield                             
          21    predictable results.”  Id. at 1731, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.  “When a work is                           
          22    available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces                     
          23    can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one.  If a                   
          24    person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely                       
          25    bars its patentability.”  Id.  For the same reason, “if a technique has been                      
          26    used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would                       
          27    recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the                        
          28    technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s                        

                                                       11                                                         

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013