Appeal 2007-3828
Application 10/107,826
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 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 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.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013