Ex Parte Monk - Page 14

             Appeal 2007-2451                                                                                         
             Application 10/694,925                                                                                   

         1   design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the                     
         2   same field or a different one.  If a person of ordinary skill can implement a                            
         3   predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”  Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d                     
         4   at 1396. For the same reason, “if a technique has been used to improve one device,                       
         5   and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve                          
         6   similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual                        
         7   application is beyond that person’s skill.”  Id. “Often, it will be necessary for a                      
         8   court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands                      
         9   known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background                          
        10   knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to                        
        11   determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in                          
        12   the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.  To facilitate review, this analysis should                  
        13   be made explicit.  See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336                               
        14   (Fed. Cir.2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by                             
        15   mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with                       
        16   some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).  As                         
        17   our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise                               
        18   teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court                   
        19   can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill                    
        20   in the art would employ.”  Id. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.  “[T]he analysis                           
        21   need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the                       
        22   challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps                      
        23   that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”  Id. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at                     
        24   1396.  “The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception                          
        25   of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the                             
        26   importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.  The                        

                                                          14                                                          


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

Last modified: September 9, 2013