Appeal No. 1999-2446 Page 23
Application No. 08/705,592
mesh as a container from [sic, for] various granular
materials."
The only argument set forth by the appellant with regard
to claim 13 (brief, p. 12) is to the effect that Scott does
not teach a plastic mesh container. While it is true that
Scott does not teach or suggest a plastic mesh container, we
find this argument unpersuasive since the examiner's rejection
was based upon the teachings of Scott taken with knowledge
known by one skilled in the art. Since the examiner's actual9
determination of obviousness was not contested by the
appellant, we sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Scott.
Claims 15 and 16
9We observe that an artisan is 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)).
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007