Appeal No. 2000-1871 Page 4
Application No. 08/907,398
the obviousness of the claimed invention in view of the prior
art relied upon, we are guided by the basic principle that the
question under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is not merely what the references expressly
teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d
804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493
U.S. 975 (1989) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981). That is, the question of obviousness
cannot be approached on the basis that an artisan having
ordinary skill would have known only what they read in the
references, because such 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).
It is not necessary that suggestion or motivation be found
within the four corners of the 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 Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007