Appeal No. 97-0082
Application No. 07/993,718
would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. See In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Here, Bales discloses a neck flange for positioning and
supporting a tracheostomy tube having a neck engaging portion 22
and an interconnection 19 formed of a material less flexible than
the neck engaging portion (see column 4, lines 9-14). Bales in
column 4, line 5, further states that the neck engaging portion
or flange member 22 is “formed about” the interconnection 19.
Bearing in mind that Bales forms his neck flange from plastic
(i.e., polymers), it is our conclusion that this statement in
conjunction with the illustrations in Figs. 1, 3 and 6 would have
fairly suggested to the artisan to construct Bales’ neck flange
by molding the neck flange about the interconnection.
With respect to claim 23, we initially observe that artisans
must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what
the references disclose (see In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516,
135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962)) and the conclusion of obviousness
may be made from "common knowledge and common sense" of the
person of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Bozek, 416 F.2d
1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)). Moreover, skill is
presumed on the part of those practicing in the art. See In re
Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007