Appeal No. 97-0145
Application 08/073,327
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). Further, in an obviousness
assessment, skill is presumed on the part of the artisan, rather
than the lack thereof. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ
771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and has been rejected as
being unpatentable over Bettinger. As we concluded above,
Bettinger discloses all of the subject matter of claim 11.
Bettinger further discloses that the pockets are in the base and
the projections are in the cover, as is added by dependent claim
12. Thus, Bettinger establishes a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter of this claim.
Claim 13 adds to claim 11 the limitation that each
projection end wall is angled and is complementary to the walls
of the pockets. Among the several embodiments of the
interlocking devices disclosed by Bettinger is one in which
complementary angled walls are present in both the projections
and the pockets (Figure 7). It is our view that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize
complementary angled walls on both the projections and the
pockets in view of this teaching. Suggestion for such is found
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007