Ex Parte Monk - Page 13

             Appeal 2007-2451                                                                                         
             Application 10/694,925                                                                                   

         1          issued patents in connection with determinations of infringement and                              
         2          validity.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir.                              
         3          1989); accord In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023                                   
         4          (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It would be inconsistent with the role assigned to                             
         5          the PTO in issuing a patent to require it to interpret claims in the same                         
         6          manner as judges who, post-issuance, operate under the assumption                                 
         7          the patent is valid.”). Instead, as we explained above, the PTO is                                
         8          obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation                                 
         9          during examination.                                                                               
        10        In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827,                             
        11   1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004).                                                                                   
        12        Obviousness                                                                                         
        13        A claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it and the prior                     
        14   art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the                          
        15   time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” 35 U.S.C.                     
        16   § 103(a) (2000); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir.                          
        17   2006) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14, (1966)).  In Graham,                          
        18   the Court held that that the obviousness analysis begins with several basic factual                      
        19   inquiries: “[(1)] the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; [(2)]                     
        20   differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and                     
        21   [(3)] the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.”  383 U.S. at 17. After                 
        22   ascertaining these facts, the obviousness of the invention is then determined                            
        23   “against th[e] background” of the Graham factors. Id. at 17-18.                                          
        24        The Supreme Court has provided guidelines for determining obviousness based                         
        25   on the Graham factors. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d                            
        26   1385 (2007).  “[a] combination of familiar elements according to known methods                           
        27   is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.  Id at                      
        28   1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.  “When a work is available in one field of endeavor,                            

                                                          13                                                          


Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013