KSR defeats Wilson, Sonsini arguments
from Ex parte DE VILLIERS
The Examiner reasons that a change in marker orientation would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (Ans. 9-10, citing MPEP § 2141).
Yes, KSR is invoked:
We agree with the Examiner’s rationale and adopt is as our own. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”)
Note also
See also In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) (“All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.”).
The Examiner reasons that a change in marker orientation would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (Ans. 9-10, citing MPEP § 2141).
Yes, KSR is invoked:
We agree with the Examiner’s rationale and adopt is as our own. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”)
Note also
See also In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) (“All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.”).
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home