Appellant Spittle loses before PTAB; KSR cited

The appellant, represented by BRINKS GILSON & LIONE , lost in the case Ex parte Spittle

Of obviousness, KSR was cited:



For these reasons, an artisan would have considered the teachings of
Peng and Acker to complement one another and would have combined these
teachings in the manner proposed in order to obtain the predictable use of
prior art elements (e.g., a culture vessel, separate cuvette, and gripper
arrangement) according to their established functions (e.g., for continuous
measurement in a cell-growing and shaking environment). See KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (in assessing the obviousness
of a claim to a combination of prior art elements, the question to be asked is
"whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions").