Georgia Tech loses at Board
KSR is cited in Ex parte DEGERTEKIN
Discussing the question of obviousness of claimed subject matter
[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock[, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Georgia Tech lost: The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14, 15, 20, and 54-56 is affirmed.