Appeal No. 96-3577
Application 08/419,064
specific mounting surface for a head mounted display unit when it is not in use as claimed.
(See brief at pages 28-29.) We disagree with appellants. The Examiner has set forth a
prima facie case of obviousness in detail and provided a convincing line of reasoning
starting from the teaching of Schoolman and in combination with common
sense reasoning why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have a mounting surface on the keyboard for when the display and
optical system is not in use. (See answer at pages 3-4.) We agree with the Examiner.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has used "classic hindsight" (brief at page 28)
in the rejection of claims 48 and 49. We disagree as discussed above. We observe that
an artisan 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).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1- 3, 6- 8,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007