Appeal No. 1998-3413
Application No. 08/512,782
within the four corners of the applied reference or references
themselves; 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 Boezk, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390,
163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)), this is because we must
presume skill on the part of the artisan, rather than the
converse. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771,
774 (Fed. Cir 1985).
While it is true that Coleman does not expressly indicate
that the pot and collar arrangement therein is intended to be
used with another pot stored therein, we observe that the
method in claim 1 on appeal does not specifically require
nesting of the pots, but only sets forth a nesting capability
between first and second pots of like shape and dimensions,
which capability we consider to be present in Coleman’s pot
and collar arrangement and obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art. As for the argument regarding the "different
decorative characteristics," we have treated this aspect of
appellant’s arguments above in our discussions of the
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007