Ex Parte Vogt et al - Page 4

                Appeal 2007-3387                                                                             
                Application 10/307,027                                                                       

                                              OBVIOUSNESS                                                    
                      Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a                 
                determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the                        
                differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level              
                of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary consideration (e.g., unexpected              
                results).  Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18,                       
                148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).  “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a                   
                claim would be obvious] need not seek out precise teachings directed to the                  
                specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account                
                of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art              
                would employ.”  KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741,                          
                82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988,                           
                78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also DyStar Textilfarben                          
                GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361,                          
                80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“The motivation need not be found                      
                in the references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of                   
                sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the                        
                nature of the problem itself.”); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ                  
                545, 549 (CCPA 1969)(“Having established that this knowledge was in the                      
                art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a              
                conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of                         
                the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion              
                in a particular reference.’”).                                                               
                      Here, we find that Konagaya teaches an antibacterial composition                       
                comprising an inorganic and/or organic antibacterial agent and a hydrophilic                 


                                                     4                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013