Appeal No. 97-1114 Page 13
Application No. 08/222,643
(CCPA 1968). Additionally, we observe that an artisan must be
presumed to know something about the art apart from what the
applied prior art discloses (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).
It is our opinion that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the appellant's
invention to have provided a plurality of terminals at the points
of intersection of the plurality of routes suggested by Kappus
which extend from an urban area to a suburban area to form a
network since providing terminals at points of intersection of
routes is well known.
With regard to claim 13, it is our opinion that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the appellant's invention that the plurality of routes
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007