Appeal No. 2001-1225 Page 4
Application No. 09/019,693
881, 886-87 (Fed. Cir. 1985)), considering that 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 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)). Insofar as the references themselves
are concerned, we are bound to consider the disclosure of each for what it fairly teaches
one of ordinary skill in the art, including not only the specific teachings, but also the
inferences which one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have been expected to
draw therefrom (see In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966)
and In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)).
As manifested in independent claim 1, the appellant’s invention is directed to a
competitive skill game comprising a playing surface having an upper end and two sides
framed by an upstanding wall “and an unframed lower end which is open” and at which two
playing stations are defined, a plurality of reboundable balls, a divider centered between
the sides and extending from the unframed lower end substantially more than halfway
toward the upper end, and a “paddle” for each playing station to launch balls and to return
launched balls.
As we understand the examiner’s rejection of claim 1, it is that Seede discloses all
of the claimed subject matter except for the inclined playing surface and the plurality of
balls. It is the examiner’s view, however, that it would have been obvious to incline the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007