Appeall No. 1998-1398 Page 23
Application No. 08/400,637
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Also, the references represent the level of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d
1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(finding that the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interference did not err in concluding that the
level of ordinary skill was best determined by the references
of record); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91, 198 USPQ 210, 214
(CCPA 1978) ("[T]he PTO usually must evaluate ... the level of
ordinary skill solely on the cold words of the literature.").
Of course, “‘[e]very patent application and reference relies
to some extent upon knowledge of persons skilled in the art to
complement that [which is] disclosed ....’” In re Bode, 550
F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re
Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 424 (CCPA 1973)).
Those persons “must be presumed to know something” about the
art “apart from what the references disclose.” In re Jacoby,
309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962). With these
principles in mind, we consider the appellants’ three
arguments.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007