Appeal No. 1997-1572
Application 07/792,534
already taught) would have been obvious to an artisan in data
processing arts. The artisan is supposed to be imbued with a
certain body of knowledge in the related arts. As our
reviewing court has stated, 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). Therefore, to the extent disclosed and claimed, claims
7 and 16 are properly rejected.
Claims 8 and 17. These claims depend on claims 7 and 11
respectively and each further calls for the first and the
second parallel recognition processors “to process the same
vector data using different handprint recognition methods.”
We note that Nakatsuka does show different methods of
character recognition.
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007