Ex Parte Mello et al - Page 16

              Appeal 2007-2240                                                                                           
              Application 09/818,016                                                                                     

         1           that is used by courts in litigation, when interpreting the claims of                               
         2           issued patents in connection with determinations of infringement and                                
         3           validity.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir.                                
         4           1989); accord In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023                                     
         5           (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It would be inconsistent with the role assigned to                               
         6           the PTO in issuing a patent to require it to interpret claims in the same                           
         7           manner as judges who, post-issuance, operate under the assumption                                   
         8           the patent is valid.”). Instead, as we explained above, the PTO is                                  
         9           obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation                                   
        10           during examination.                                                                                 
        11        In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827,                                
        12    1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004).                                                                                     
        13        Obviousness                                                                                            
        14        These claims are under rejection for obviousness.  A claimed invention is                              
        15    unpatentable if the differences between it and the prior art are “such that the                            
        16    subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was                            
        17    made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2000); In re                       
        18    Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Graham                              
        19    v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14, (1966)).  In Graham, the Court held that that                        
        20    the obviousness analysis begins with several basic factual inquiries: “[(1)] the                           
        21    scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; [(2)] differences between                         
        22    the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and [(3)] the level of                        
        23    ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.”  383 U.S. at 17. After ascertaining                         
        24    these facts, the obviousness of the invention is then determined “against th[e]                            
        25    background” of the Graham factors. Id. at 17-18.                                                           
        26        The Supreme Court has provided guidelines for determining obviousness based                            
        27    on the Graham factors. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d                              
        28    1385 (2007).  “[a] combination of familiar elements according to known methods                             

                                                           16                                                            


Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013