Appeal No. 96-0935
Application 08/157,737
following guidelines provided by our reviewing court: The
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness (see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993), which is established when the
teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art
(see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed.
Cir. 1993)). This is not to say, however, that the claimed
invention must expressly be suggested in any one or all of the
references, rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art (see Cable Electric Products, Inc. v.
Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1025, 226 USPQ 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)), with skill being presumed on the
part of the artisan, rather than the lack thereof (see In re
Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742, 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007