2016年 07月 13日
米国 §103 ALLIED ERECTING AND DISMANTLING v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS
”…“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference,” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425), but rather whether “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention,” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Upon determining that side walls 13a of Caterpillar serve a similar quick release function as the bridge hous-ing of the ’489 patent, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the immobi-lized jaw of Caterpillar (first jaw 13) in order to provide for a wider range of motion as taught by Ogawa, to make the jaw set more efficient. For example, a wider range of motion would augment the jaw sets’ grasping capabilities. ”
（CAFC June 15, 2016）
（2016.7.13. 弁理士 鈴木学）