Appeal No. 94-3349
Application 07/757,085
provided us with the following guidance for evaluating this
issue: 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. 1989) and In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). While
there must be some suggestion or motivation for one of ordinary
skill in the art to combine the teachings of the references, it
is not necessary that such 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 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). Further, in an obviousness
assessment, skill is presumed on the part of the artisan rather
than the lack thereof. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ
771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 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 inferences
which one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have been
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007