Obviousness

My previous attempt to summarize and analyze US patent RE48479 was hindered by the inability to directly fetch the patent's full text. I will now attempt to locate the patent claims and specification using the USPTO's Patent Public Search tool, as suggested by the search results.

Disclaimer: As a large language model, I cannot directly access external patent databases or proprietary tools beyond the scope of web searches. My analysis will be based on publicly available information I can retrieve.

Analysis of Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent RE48479

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an invention is considered obvious and thus not patentable "if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains." This analysis requires considering the prior art through the lens of a "person having ordinary skill in the art" (PHOSITA).

To perform an obviousness analysis, the following steps are typically undertaken, as established by Graham v. John Deere Co.:

1. Determine the scope and content of the prior art.
2. Ascertain the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.
3. Resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Evaluate objective indicia of non-obviousness (secondary considerations).

Since I was unable to retrieve the full text of US patent RE48479, including its claims and specification, in the previous step, I cannot definitively determine the "scope and content of the prior art" that was cited during its prosecution, nor can I "ascertain the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art." Therefore, without this foundational information, I cannot fulfill the request to:

• Identify specific combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious.
• Explain why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them.

The "specification" provides the detailed description of the invention, while the "claims" define the legal scope of protection. Without access to these, any analysis of obviousness would be purely speculative.

To conduct this analysis, I would need the full text of US patent RE48479, which would include the independent claims, dependent claims, and the detailed written description (specification). I would then need to identify the prior art cited during the patent's prosecution and evaluate the teachings of those references against the claims of RE48479. The motivation to combine prior art references often arises from explicit suggestions, implicit teachings, or common sense solutions readily apparent to a PHOSITA.