Appeal No. 97-1647 Page 5
Application No. 08/321,255
ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573,
1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interference did not err in
concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was
best determined by the references of record); In re Oelrich,
579 F.2d 86, 91, 198 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) ("[T]he PTO
usually must evaluate ... the level of ordinary skill solely
on the cold words of the literature."). Of course, every
patent application and reference relies to some extent upon
knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement that
which is disclosed therein. In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660,
193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977). Persons skilled in the art,
moreover, must be presumed to know something about the art
apart from what the references teach. In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d
513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962). With this in mind,
we address the obviousness of claims 1 and 4-6, claims 2 and
3, claims 7-12, and claims 13-21 seriatim.
Obviousness of Claims 1 and 4-6
The appellants make three arguments regarding claims 1
and 4-6. We consider these one-by-one. First, they argue,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007