Appeal No. 95-2880
Application 08/091,294
the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness (see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), which is
established when the teachings of the prior art itself would
appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of
ordinary skill in the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26
USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)). This is not to say,
however, that the claimed invention must expressly be suggested
in any one or all of the references, rather, the test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art (see
Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015,
1025, 226 USPQ 881, 886-87 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)), considering that a
conclusion of obviousness may be made from common knowledge and
common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without
any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference (see In
re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)),
with skill being presumed on the part of the artisan, rather than
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007