Ex Parte LeClear et al - Page 3

               Appeal 2007-1802                                                                            
               Application 10/648,575                                                                      
                      Based on the contentions of the Examiner and the Appellants, the                     
               issue before us is:  Has the Examiner made accurate and sufficient factual                  
               findings such that it is reasonable to conclude that one of ordinary skill in               
               the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the                           
               references in the manner claimed within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103?                     
               We answer this question in the affirmative.                                                 
                      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 considerations.  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 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, 1740-41, 82                     
               USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78                         
               USPQ2d 1329, 1336-337 (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                        

                                                    3                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013