Appeal No. 97-3289
Application 08/550,895
ordinary skill in the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783,
26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). This is not to say
that the claimed invention must expressly be suggested in any
one or all of the references, however, for 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 Elec. Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015,
1025, 226 USPQ 881, 886-87 (Fed. Cir. 1985)), 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 the lack thereof (see In re Sovish, 769
F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
The objective of the appellants’ invention is to
provide a number of improvements over prior art air
mattresses, such as the one disclosed in Nail, which was
mentioned in the appellants’ specification and was applied by
the examiner as the primary reference. The invention is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007