CAFC affirms Board on obviousness
From Kingpak v. Kappos :
Obviousness is a legal question based on underlying factual determinations, including what the prior art teaches. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1199–1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence and review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo. In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A finding is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the evidence to support the finding. Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
Kingpak challenges the Board’s underlying factual findings regarding the teaching of Lee. Because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings regarding Lee, we will not address Kingpak’s other arguments.
Obviousness is a legal question based on underlying factual determinations, including what the prior art teaches. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1199–1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence and review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo. In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A finding is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the evidence to support the finding. Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
Kingpak challenges the Board’s underlying factual findings regarding the teaching of Lee. Because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings regarding Lee, we will not address Kingpak’s other arguments.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home