Appeal 2007-3581
Application 11/203,777
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. See Graham v.
John Deere of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
“[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim is 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 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…”). Although patent
drawings need not be drawn to scale, this does not mean that relative
proportions shown in the drawings should be disregarded. See In re Mraz,
455 F.2d 1069, 1072, 173 USPQ 25, 27 (CCPA 1972).
Applying the preceding legal principles to the factual findings of
record in this appeal, we determine that a prima facie case of obviousness
has been established by the reference evidence, which prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. As shown by
factual finding (1) listed above, and not contested by Appellants, we
determine that WO ‘612 discloses the three required devices arranged in the
same order as required by claim 22 on appeal. As shown by factual finding
(2) listed above, we determine that WO ‘612 teaches the use of side dams.
Therefore, we determine that one of ordinary skill in this art would have
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013