Court Opinion

ID: 9483551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:23:50.81026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:41.248068
License: Public Domain

NIES, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the panel decision and write only to express my understanding of the language that there must be some teaching, reason, suggestion, or motivation found “in the prior art” or “in the prior art references” to make a combination to render an invention obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 (1988). Similar language appears in a number of opinions1 *1448and if taken literally would mean that an invention cannot be held to have been obvious unless something specific in a prior art reference would lead an inventor to combine the teachings therein with another piece of prior art.
This restrictive understanding of the concept of obviousness is clearly wrong. Other statements in opinions express the idea more generally. We have stated, for example, that the test is: “whether the teachings of the prior art, taken as a whole, would have made obvious the claimed invention,” In re Gorman, 933 F.2d at 986, 18 USPQ2d at 1888, and “what the combined teachings ... would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art,” In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed.Cir.1991). We have also stated that “the prior art as a whole must suggest the desirability ... of making the combination.” Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825, 109 S.Ct. 75, 102 L.Ed.2d 51 (1988); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed.Cir.1984).
I believe that it would better reflect the concept of obviousness to speak in terms of “from the prior art” rather than simply “in the prior art.” The word “from” expresses the idea of the statute that we must look at the obviousness issue through the eyes of one of ordinary skill in the art and what one would be presumed to know with that background. What would be obvious to one of skill in the art is a different question from what would be obvious to a layman. An artisan is likely to extract more than a layman from reading a reference.
In any event, variance in the language used in opinions does not change the nature of the statutory inquiry. Under section 103, subject matter is unpatentable if it “would have been obvious ... to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” While there must be some teaching, reason, suggestion, or motivation to combine existing elements to produce the claimed device, it is not necessary that the cited references or prior art specifically suggest making the combination. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed.Cir.1988). Such suggestion or motivation to combine prior art teachings can derive solely from the existence of a teaching, which one of ordinary skill in the art would be presumed to know, and the use of that teaching to solve the same or similar problem which it addresses. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1037, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979). See, also, EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 906-07, 225 USPQ 20, 25 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843, 106 S.Ct. 131, 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed.Cir.1983). See also, Ex parte Clayy, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd.Pat.App. & Inter. 1985) (“To support the conclusion that the claimed combination is directed to obvious subject matter, either the references must expressly or implicitly suggest the claimed combination or the examiner must present a convincing line of reasoning as to why the artisan would have found the claimed invention to have been obvious in light of the teachings of the references.”).
In sum, it is off the mark for litigants to argue, as many do, that an invention cannot be held to have been obvious unless a suggestion to combine prior art teachings is found in a specific reference.

. See, e.g., Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1576, 19 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed.Cir.1991); In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed.Cir.1991); In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 682, 16 USPQ2d 1430, 1432 (Fed.Cir.1990); Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v. *1448Helena Laboratories Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 887, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1475 (Fed.Cir.1988); In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed.Cir.1988); In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 755, 4 USPQ2d 1071, 1073 (Fed.Cir.1987); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed.Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017, 106 S.Ct. 1201, 89 L.Ed.2d 315 (1986); In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 732, 226 USPQ 870, 872 (Fed.Cir.1985).