Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
"The scope of the prior art has been defined as that 'reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved'."
Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1535, 218 USPQ 871, 876
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
The level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the references.
See In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91, 198 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) ("the
PTO usually must evaluate both the scope and content of the prior art and
the level of ordinary skill solely on the cold words of the literature");
In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir.
1995) (the Board did not err in adopting the approach that the level of skill
in the art was best determined by the references of record).
Objective evidence of nonobviousness (also called "secondary
considerations") must always be considered in making an obviousness
decision, Stratoflex, 713 F.2d at 1538-39, 218 USPQ at 879, although it need
not be necessarily conclusive, Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refrac.,
Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 306, 227 USPQ 657, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Facts
1. Scope of prior art
1. It is not contested that Krantz and Nitta are analogous art.
2. Content of Krantz
2. Krantz discloses that the basic unit of work in OS/2 is called a
"thread" and "[e]ach process can consist of one or more threads" (page 16).
101
Page: Previous 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013