Appeal No. 95-4589
Application 08/042,888
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)). Moreover, skill is presumed on the part of those
practicing in the art. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743,
226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, although
McComb in Fig. 3 schematically shows the circuitry to be
outside the housing for the apparent purpose of ease
illustration, we perceive that the artisan would have been
well aware of the commonplace expedient of enclosing the
circuitry for controlling the operation of a light within the
housing of the light for the purpose of protecting the
circuitry from damage (e.g., exposure to the elements or from
being hit by a foreign object) and would have found it obvious
as a matter of common sense to house the circuitry of McComb
within the housing.
Moreover, as the examiner has observed, Swanson in Fig. 2
depicts a light wherein the circuit which controls the light
is enclosed within the same housing as the light for the self-
evident purposes of providing protection for the circuit and
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007