Appeal 2007-3548
Application 10/627,947
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). “[A]nalysis
[of whether the subject matter of a claim would have been 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 Co.,
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.’”);
In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-07, 160 USPQ 809, 811-12 (CCPA
1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the
references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom . . . .”). The analysis supporting
obviousness, however, should be made explicit and should “identify a reason
that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
elements” in the manner claimed. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at
1396.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013