Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Applicant fails in Ex parte BANOWSKI

Principles of law:

“In proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, the Examiner bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness based upon the prior art.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417.
Moreover, an “[e]xpress suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious.” In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982). As noted by the Court in KSR, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” 550 U.S. at 421.


Such a combination is merely a “predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.

As to unexpected results:

If Appellants are suggesting that there is an unexpected result, Appellants have provided no evidence that the results are unexpected relative to the closest prior art of Banowski and Schamper. No comparison with the prior art is presented. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art.”).


“[W]here the general conditions of a claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (citing In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931 (CCPA 1934); In re Waite, 168 F.2d 104 (CCPA 1948)). Appellants have also provided no evidence that the matching yields any unexpected results in the antiperspirant or deodorant products.



Post a Comment

<< Home