Appeal 2007-2191
Application 10/284,553
The Examiner has rejected claims 3 through 9, 29, and 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Christensen, Dempsey, Cheuk, Wang, Axelrod, and Knigge.
The Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s decision rejecting the
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
ISSUE
Would the prior art relied upon by the Examiner have suggested the
claimed hard, ductile, long-lasting dog chew within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103?
FACTS, PRINCIPLES OF LAW, AND ANALYSES
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 consideration (e.g., unexpected
results). Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148
USPQ 459, 467 (1966). “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a
claim would have been 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); see also DyStar
Textilfarben GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013