Appeal 2007-2817
Application 11/049,176
matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including
(1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
subject matter and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734 (“While the
sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the
[Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”) The Court in
Graham further noted that evidence of secondary considerations “might be utilized
to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter
sought to be patented.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that “Appellants have ascribed a definite meaning to
‘integral’ within the specification and the Appellants’ ‘lexicography governs’”
(Appeal Br. 6). More specifically, Appellants contend that “[t]he term ‘integral’ as
used in the claims has a defined meaning that is limited to a one-piece or unitary
member” (Id.). We agree.
In interpreting claim language, we apply the broadest reasonable meaning of
the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions
or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description. See In re Morris, 127
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013