Ex Parte Autterson - Page 15

                Appeal 2007-2111                                                                                  
                Application 09/921,204                                                                            

            1   Appellant directs us to In re Wright, 848 F.2d 1216, 6 USPQ2d 1959 (Fed.                          
            2   Cir. 1988), in support of Appellant's position.   In In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688,                  
            3   693-94, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court, in an in banc                           
            4   decision, overruled the holding in In re Wright, relied upon by Appellant.                        
            5   Appellant [Dillon] cited In re  Wright, 848 F.2d at 1219, 6 USPQ2d at 1961,                       
            6   for the proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness requires that the                      
            7   prior art suggest the claimed compositions’ properties and the problem the                        
            8   applicant attempts to solve. Dillon, 919 F.2d at 692-93, 16 USPQ2d at 1901.                       
            9   Appellant Dillon asserted that none of the references relates to the problem                      
          10    she confronted, Dillon, 919 F.2d at 693-94, 16 USPQ2d at 1902.  The court                         
          11    stated that:                                                                                      
          12           it is not necessary in order to establish a prima facie case of                            
          13           obviousness that both a structural similarity between a claimed and                        
          14           prior art compound (or a key component of a composition) be shown                          
          15           and that there be a suggestion in or expectation from the prior art that                   
          16           the claimed compound or composition will have the same or a similar                        
          17           utility as one newly discovered by applicant. To the extent that                           
          18           Wright suggests or holds to the contrary, it is hereby overruled.                          
          19                                                                                                      
          20    Dillon, 919 F.2d at 692-93, 16 USPQ2d at 1901.                                                    
          21           The Supreme Court’s statement in KSR that “The first error of the                          
          22    Court of Appeals in this case was to foreclose this reasoning by holding that                     
          23    courts and patent examiners should look only to the problem the patentee                          
          24    was trying to solve.  119 Fed. Appx., at 288.   The Court of Appeals failed to                    
          25    recognize that the problem motivating the patentee may be only one of many                        
          26    addressed by the patent's subject matter.   The question is not whether the                       
          27    combination was obvious to the patentee but whether the combination was                           
          28    obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art.   Under the correct                           

                                                       15                                                         

Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013