CAFC discusses obviousness in In re Kumar
One has issues of obviousness in terms of overlapping range (Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325), and of new ground for rejection (Waysmouth, 486 F.2d 1058) in Kumar.
UPDATE:
On multiple references (Gorman, 1991) in obviousness:
“Presuming arguendo that the references show the elements or concepts urged by the examiner, the examiner has presented no line of reasoning, and we know of none, as to why the artisan viewing only the collective teachings of the references would have found it obvious to selectively pick and choose various elements and/or concepts from the several references relied upon to arrive at the claimed invention.” Ex Parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (PTO Bd App. 1985); In Re Horn, 203 USPQ 969 (CCPA 1979). The collection of references supports the inescapable conclusion that the Examiner has pieced the references together to support a rejection on the basis of hindsight
UPDATE:
On multiple references (Gorman, 1991) in obviousness:
“Presuming arguendo that the references show the elements or concepts urged by the examiner, the examiner has presented no line of reasoning, and we know of none, as to why the artisan viewing only the collective teachings of the references would have found it obvious to selectively pick and choose various elements and/or concepts from the several references relied upon to arrive at the claimed invention.” Ex Parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (PTO Bd App. 1985); In Re Horn, 203 USPQ 969 (CCPA 1979). The collection of references supports the inescapable conclusion that the Examiner has pieced the references together to support a rejection on the basis of hindsight
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 7:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home