Appeal 2007-2606
Application 10/903,376
A claimed invention is not patentable if its subject matter would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007);
Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Facts
relevant to a determination of obviousness include: (1) the scope and
content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed invention
and the prior art, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art and (4) relevant
objective evidence of nonobviousness. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d
1389; Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18. All claim limitations must be taught or
suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985, 180 USPQ 580,
583 (CCPA 1974). It is well settled that "anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness." Cornell v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220
USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,
794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982)).
A. Rejection based on Hull in view of Wiener
The obviousness rejection of claims 1-8 under § 103(a) is sustained
insofar as it is based on the anticipatory disclosure of Wiener for the reasons
given above. Cornell, 722 F.2d at 1548, 220 USPQ at 198; Fracalossi, 681
F.2d at 794, 215 USPQ at 571.
B. Rejection based on Hull in view of Wenkman
1. Hull
[12] Hull describes a picture frame F having a bottom bar 7 and side
members 8 which are rabbeted or grooved, as indicated at 9, to
accommodate a transparent element 10 and items, e.g., pictures, etc.
(Hull 1:60-68).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013