Appeal 2007-2308
Application 10/182,122
vitamin A and therefore would not have been motivated to add a second
counterirritant to Burger’s composition. As set forth in KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007),
a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious
merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
independently, known in the prior art. Although common sense
directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims
as innovation the combination of two known devices according
to their established functions, it can be important to identify a
reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in
the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
claimed new invention does.
Here the rationale relied upon by the Examiner to combine Burger and Bell
is not supported by the evidence of record. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-16, 20-23, 25, and 27-29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Burger and Bell.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
dm
MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C.
2200 CLARENDON BLVD.
SUITE 1400
ARLINGTON VA 22201
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: September 9, 2013